JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition the petitioner, who is holding post of Chikitsak in Ayurveda Department, has challenged the order dated 24.8.91 passed by the Director Ayurveda Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereby he has been transferred from 'A' Grade Hospital Bharatpur to Thana in District Bhilwara. 2. In short the case of the petitioner is that he passed BAMS Examination from MMM Ayurvedic College, Udaipur in the year 1978. He joined Government Service on being appointed as Chikitsak in Ayurveda Department in the year 1980 and he has been discharging his duties satisfactorily. He has passed M.D. (Ayurveda) in the year 1989. In July, 89 the petitioner was transferred to Ayurved Pharmacy at Ajmer. Thereafter by an order dated 25.12.90 he was transfer to 'A' Grade Ayurved. Hospital at Bharatpur. This order was passed on the basis of representation made by the petitioner that his wife was seriously ill and therefore, it was necessary that he be posted at his native place. The order of transfer dated 25.12.90 was passed in accordance with the Govt. Policy of posting Post Graduate Chikitsak in 'A' Grade Ayurveda Hospital. However, just after 8 months of his posting at Bharatpur, on his personal representation and in furtherance of the policy of the Government, an order dated 24.8.91 has been passed by the Director Ayurveda Department transferring petitioner to Thana (Bhilwara) and respondent No. 3 has been transferred to 'A' Grade Ayurveda Hospital, Bharatpur. This has been done at the instance of the respondent No. 4, who wanted to favour respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 has been transferred on request and therefore, he has not been allowed travelling allowance or joining time. Respondent No. 3 had been transferred from Bharatpur District just before 4 months ago. And now has been accommended at Bharatpur once again. 3. The petitioner's case is that the order of transfer has been passed in utter disregard of the Government policy of posting Ayurveda Chikitsak having Post Graduate Qualification in 'A' Grade Hospital. Another policy of the Government of not passing the order of transfer before completion of 2 years service at a place of posting has been flouted. 3. The petitioner's case is that the order of transfer has been passed in utter disregard of the Government policy of posting Ayurveda Chikitsak having Post Graduate Qualification in 'A' Grade Hospital. Another policy of the Government of not passing the order of transfer before completion of 2 years service at a place of posting has been flouted. Above all, the petitioner has been shunted out of Bharatpur only in order to make room for respondent No. 3, who manipulated his retransfer to Bharatpur within 4 months of his earlier transfer and this has been possible on account of the interference by respondent No. 4 who is the State Minister for Ayurveda Department, Government of Rajasthan. 4. Respondent No. 3 has filed a reply to the writ petition in which he has asserted that the petitioner has remained posted at Government Ayurveda Hospital, Hatoni District Bharatpur between 1985 to 1987. After doing his post graduation, he was posted in Ajmer where the biggest Ayurveda Pharmacy of Rajasthan exists. He had done his post graduation qualifications in Pharmacy and therefore his qualifications could be best utilised at the Government Ayurveda Pharmacy, Ajmer. That Ayurveda Pharmacy is in the A Class. However, the petitioner managed his transfer to Bharatpur by making representation about the alleged illness of his wife. As per petitioner's own admission he had been posted in Ayurveda Pharmacy at Ajmer in January, 1990 and within one year he got himself transferred to Bharatpur. The Government's policy contained in Circular dated 22.12.89 and which has been reiteiced in circular dated 27.12.89 only goes to show that as far as possible Ayurved Post Graduate Chikitsak should be posted in 'A' Grade Hospitals. Thus the policy is not an absolute one which makes it mandatory for the departmental authority to post a post graduate Chikitsak only in 'A' Grade Hospital. The respondent No. 3 has also referred to another Government order dated 5.3.90 by which it has been declared that in the. Pharmacies and Drug control Organisation Post Graduates in Dravya Gun and Ras Shastra, in Ajmer, Mobile Circle Hospital and other Mobile Units the post graduate Doctors should be posted as far as possible. According to the respondent No. 3 the transfer of the petitioner to Bhilwara is also in public interest because he has been posted at a place where Ayurveda Pharmacy exists. According to the respondent No. 3 the transfer of the petitioner to Bhilwara is also in public interest because he has been posted at a place where Ayurveda Pharmacy exists. Respondent No. 3 has also stated that the Ajmer Pharmacy was also as good as A Grade Hospital and the petitioner ought not to have sought his transfer from Amer to Bharatpur. Respondent No. 3 has tried to justify the transfer of the petitioner on the ground that his service can be better utilised in rural areas on account of his better educational qualifications. He has denied the allegation of malafide or arbitrariness in passing of the order of transfer. He has also denied the allegation of desire of respondent No. 4 in passing of the impugned order of the transfer. 5. Shri Alok Sharma, Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that once the Government has laid down the policy of transfer and posting, it must abide by it. The policy has been framed to be followed and not to be flouted. Once the Government has laid down the standard of its working in the matter of transfer of Government Servants, it must act in accordance with those standards and if there is a flagrant breach of the same, the court must hold the Government action as arbitrary. Sri Sharma argued that the Government has clearly laid down the policy of posting post graduate Chikitsak in A Grade Hospital. The petitioner's representation for posting in A Grade Hospital was accepted and now within a period of 8 months he has been shifted to a distinct place. 6. Shri J.M. Saxena and Shri S.L. Sharma, learned counsels for the respondents argued with equal vehemence that all the transfer policies of the Government are administrative in nature. These transfer policies do not have the force of law. They merely contain administrative/executive instructions and breach of these instruction cannot be made basis for making claim that the order of transfer should be quashed unless it is found that the power of transfer has been exercised for collateral purpose or for achieving some unauthorised purpose or if the power of transfer is exercised with malice. They argued that as per Government policy Post Graduate Chikitsaks are to be posted in A Grade Hospitals or Pharmacies as far as possible. They argued that as per Government policy Post Graduate Chikitsaks are to be posted in A Grade Hospitals or Pharmacies as far as possible. The departmental authorities have been giving appointment and posting post graduate degree Holders even at the places where A Grade Hospital does not exist. The petitioner was working in Ayurveda Pharmacy at Ajmer where he was posted after his post gradation. He however, managed his own transfer by representation or otherwise and now when he has been transferred, he is making grievance about the breach of the transfer policy. Shri S.L. Sharma further argued that the transfer of the petitioner in the month of December, 90 was itself in violation of Government Policy which provided that an employee shall not be transferred within 2 years of his previous posting. 7. Before I examine the other arguments, it will be proper to observe that the petitioner had impleaded respondent No. 4 as party to the petition but on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, name of respondent No. 4 was deleted from the array of respondents vide order dated 9.10.91. Once the respondent No. 4 has been deleted from the array of the respondents, it is neither proper nor just to examine the question of malafide in regard to the exercise of power of transfer on the ground that the respondent No. 4 had expressed his desire or manipulated the transfer of respondent No. 3 at Bharatpur. No finding of malice in fact can be recorded against respondent No. 4 because no opportunity of hearing has been given to him and no opportunity of defence has been given to him in respect of the allegation made against him in the writ petition. 8. The various transfer/posting policies which have been placed on record goes to show that these policies are not the rules enacted under proviso to Article 309 of the constitution of India. They are in the form of administrative/executive instructions issued by the Government. These instructions are required to be followed by different officers of the Government who are empowered to pass orders of postings and transfers of the employees. However since these instructions have been issued by the Government in exercise of its executive power, the same cannot be treated as piece of legislation and these, administrative/executive instructions do not have the force of law. However since these instructions have been issued by the Government in exercise of its executive power, the same cannot be treated as piece of legislation and these, administrative/executive instructions do not have the force of law. On the basis of these instructions no right can be said to have been created in favour of employee nor can it be said that by effecting transfers of Government servants in violation of these instructions, vested right of Government Servant is taken away. Therefore, mere breach of these instructions without anything more does not have the effect of invalidate in the order of transfer itself. In Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532 their Lordships of Supreme Court have observed as under "Where a competent authority issues transfer orders with a view to accommodate a public servant to avoid hardship, the same cannot and should not be interfered with by the Court merely because the transfer orders were passed on the request of the employees concerned. The Courts should not interfere with transfer orders which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or the ground of malafide. A Government servant holding transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place (Sic) (or the other, he is liable to transferred from one place) to the other. Transfer order issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the Court ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities of the Department." 9. That apart it is clear from the facts of this case that the petitioner himself was transferred within 1 years of his posting. He was transferred from Ajmer to Bharatpur before the expiry of period of 2 years. That was in clear violation of the administrative policy. Petitioner cannot be allowed to urge with other persons has been transferred in violation of the policy decision. He was transferred from Ajmer to Bharatpur before the expiry of period of 2 years. That was in clear violation of the administrative policy. Petitioner cannot be allowed to urge with other persons has been transferred in violation of the policy decision. In the absence of any proof of malafide in the passing of order of transfer, in my opinion there is no justification to quash impugned order of transfer, the writ petition has no merit in it and it is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******