V. H. BHAIRAVIA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged the impugned transfer order dated 1st September 1993 on the ground that it is passed with some ulterior motive to accommodate the respondent no. 3 by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 336 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) THE short facts of the petition are that the petitioners was selected for Gujarat Administrative Service Class : I by the Gujarat Public Service Commission in 1991 and since then the petitioner is discharging his duties as Class : 1 office in the Government. It is submitted that vide notification dated 5th March 1993 annexure : A the petitioner has been promoted in Ex-cadre post of Deputy Chief Executive Office cum Deputy Commissioner Sardar Sarovar Rehabilitation Agency Gandhinagar in the pay scale of Rs. 3500 It is further submitted that by a notification dated 19th July 1993 the petitioner has been transferred to Health and Family Welfare Department in the Ex-cadre post of Director Central Medical Stores Organisation Gandhinagar vice respondent No. 3 Shri V. C. Trivedi who has been transferred and posted in place of the petitioner on the Ex-cadre post of Deputy Chief Office cum Deputy Commissioner Rehabilitation Sardar Sarovar Rehabilitation Agency Gandhinagar. ( 3 ) IT is submitted that within the span of one half months again by a notification dated 1st September 1993 the petitioner has been again transferred from Gandhinagar Amreli in Agriculture Co-Operation and Rural Development Department on Ex-cadre post of Director District Rural Development Agency and respondent no. 3 V. C. Trivedi has been posted in place of the petitioner. Hence this petition. ( 4 ) HEARD Mr. Y. N. Oza learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. H. Sompura learned AGP for the respondent government. The respondents have also filed affidavit-in-reply denying the allegations. Mr. 3 V. C. Trivedi has been posted in place of the petitioner. Hence this petition. ( 4 ) HEARD Mr. Y. N. Oza learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. H. Sompura learned AGP for the respondent government. The respondents have also filed affidavit-in-reply denying the allegations. Mr. Sompura learned AGP raised four preliminary objections and submitted : (1) In view of the latest Supreme Court judgment in the case of Union of India vs. S. L. Abbas reported in AIR 1993 SC 2444 this Court cannot interfere in the matter of transfer order unless it is passed in violation of any statutory provisions or vitiated by malafides; (2) Administrative guidelines regarding transfer of government employees have no statutory force and are not enforceable by courts of Law; (3) The impugned order is passed purely on the ground of administrative exigencies and in the public interest and (4) That Ex-cadre post in question is very important and sensitive key post in the department and as the petitioner being newly promoted on the Ex-cadre post he would not be able to discharge his duties efficiently and with integrity however the government is willing to accommodate the petitioner at Gandhinagar or Ahmedabad in any other Office. In support of these preliminary objections Mr. Sompura learned AGP relied on the decision in the case of Union of India vs. S. L. Abbas reported in AIR 1993 SC 2444 wherein the Supreme Court observed as under:an order of transfer is an incident of Government Service Fundamental Rule 11 says that the whole lime of a Government servant is at the disposal of the Government which pays him and he may be employed in any manner required by proper authority. Fundamental Rule 15 says that the President may transfer a Government servant from one post to another That the respondent is liable to transfer any where in India is not in dispute. It is not the case of the respondent that the order or his transfer is vitiated by mala fides on the part of the authority making the order though the Tribunal does say so merely because certain guidelines issued by the Central Government are not followed with which findings we shall deal later. The respondent attributed mischief to his immediate superior who had nothing to do with his transfer. The respondent attributed mischief to his immediate superior who had nothing to do with his transfer. All he says is that he should not be transferred because his wile is working at Shillong his children are studying there and also because his health had suffered a set-back some lime ago. He relies upon certain executive instructions issued by the Government in that behalf. Those infractions are in the nature of guidelines. They do not have statutory force. It has been further observed by the Supreme Court in para: 7 of the said judgment as under who should be transferred where is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fies or is made in violation of any statutory provisions the Court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer there is no doubt the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible husband and wile must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right. Mr. Sompura learned AGP further relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of B. Varadha Rao vs. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 1986 SC 1995 wherein it has been observed as under :that a government servant is liable to be transferred to a similar post in the same cadre is a normal feature and incident of government service and no government servant can claim to remain in a particular place or in a particular post unless of course his appointment itself is to be specified non-transferable post. ( 5 ) HAVING regard to the latest review of the Appex Court in the ease of transfer the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is restricted by narrowing down the scope of interference with the transfer order by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Notwithstanding that the underlying principles of justice have not changed but the complex pattern of lire that is static require a fresher outlook and a timely and vigorous moulding of old principles to suit new conditions and ideas and ideals. Notwithstanding that the underlying principles of justice have not changed but the complex pattern of lire that is static require a fresher outlook and a timely and vigorous moulding of old principles to suit new conditions and ideas and ideals. It is true that the courts do not legislate but it is not true that they do not mould and make law in their process of interpretation (1958 SCR 1327 ). However the employees are not left without any remedy against the arbitrary transfer made under the guise of administrative exigencies or public interest violating or ignoring administrative insurrections with some ulterior motive. If such transfer is challenged on the ground of violation of any statutory right or it is vitiated by mala fides such transfer order will be subjected to the scrutiny of judicial review. Further it is observed by the Supreme Court in para -7 of the judgment in the ease of Union of India vs. S. L. Abbas (Supra) that. . . . while ordering the transfer there is no dispute that the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Incidentally it is to be observed here that the administrative instructions regarding the transfer as observed by the Supreme Court has no statutory force and they are unenforceable by the Court of Law but they are administrative instructions and guidelines regulating administrative discipline and the breach of the said administrative instructions by any officer would amount to misconduct and the officer would be liable to departmental proceedings. But in the matte matter transfer of a Government officer in violation of such guidelines under the guise of administrative exigencies or public interest is no doubt reviewable under the writ jurisdiction or the High Court is the order of transfer is found to be vitiated by mala fides and in the event of immediate transfer or a particular officer made on the ground of administrative exigencies and public interest in violation of the instructions and guidelines transferring authority is required to note reasons for decision of immediate transfer of the officer concerned and does not follow administrative guidelines is transfer suspects that his transfer has been made with some ulterior motive or smell of mala fides comes out then certainly the Court can look into said order in exercise of powers under Art. 226 or the Constitution or India and the respondent is bound to explain the compelling reasons and circumstances for not following administrative guidelines. ( 6 ) UNDER the Constitution of India in Chapter : IV directive principles of State Policy have been enumerated. Other embodied aims and objects of the State under Republic Constitution that is Welfare State. Nodoubt embodied directive principles contained in part IV of the Constitution are unenforceable in the Court of law as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Keshavanand vs. State of Kerala reported in 1973 (4) SCC 225 . That does not mean that directive principles of the State of Policy have no importance in our Constitution. In my opinion administrative instructions and guidelines regarding transfer should be read in that spirit and to be kept in mind the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. S. L. Abbas (Supra) ( 7 ) MR. Oza learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the guidelines enumerated in Govt. Gazette dated 26. 7. 80 in printed it is stated that a Gazette Officer who has served continuously for there years at one place the same officer should not be posted in the same department in the same cadre. Mr. Oza further pointed out that the respondent no. 3 Mr. Gazette dated 26. 7. 80 in printed it is stated that a Gazette Officer who has served continuously for there years at one place the same officer should not be posted in the same department in the same cadre. Mr. Oza further pointed out that the respondent no. 3 Mr. Trivedi remained on the post in question i. e. Health and family Welfare Department under the Ex-cadre post of Director Central Medical Stores Organisation Gandhinagar for two year and 9 months and his services came to be withdrawn by the respondent from this department by a notification dated 19th July 1993 and posted him in Narmada and Water Resources Department in place of the petition This fact has not been controverted by the respondents. Mr. Oza submitted that the respondent no. 3 who has served in this department for 2 years and 9 months and before he completes three years in this department he has been transferred to another department by the same notification dated 19th July 1993 It is submitted that within a span of 1 1 years the respondent no. 3 is being brought back in the same department in which he has previously worked for nearly about three years. The same its in violation of administrative guidelines and policy. Mr. Oza further submitted that in the affidavit-in-reply the respondents have filed to give any justifiable reasons fore re-transfer and re-posting in the same department where he has already served for about 3 years. Mr. Oza further submitted that the respondent no. 3 Mr. Trivedi has been serving a Gandhinagar and Ahmedabad since 1988 having completed more than five years at one centre and the respondent no. 3 is not being transferred to another station outside Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar while the petitioner who was serving at Ahmedabad for more than three years and has been posted in Ex-cadre post as Deputy Chief Executive Officer cum Deputy Commissioner Sardar Sarovor Rehabilitation Agency by a notification dated 15th March 1993 and by a notification dated 19th July 1993 the petition has been transferred to Health and Family Welfare Department in the Ex-cadre post of Director Central Medical Stores Organisation Gandhinagar vice the respondent no. 3 and again within a span of 1 1/2 months the petitioner has been transferred to Amreli vide notification dated 1st September 1993 in the Agriculture Co-Operation and Rural Development Department. The respondent no. 3 and again within a span of 1 1/2 months the petitioner has been transferred to Amreli vide notification dated 1st September 1993 in the Agriculture Co-Operation and Rural Development Department. The respondent no. 3 has been posted in place of the petitioner at Gandhinagar. Mr. Oza therefore submitted that there is an ulterior motive of the respondents behind transferring the petitioner from Gandhinagar Amreli with a view to accommodate respondent no. 3 and therefore the impugned order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides and requires to be quashed and set aside in view of the principles enunciated in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B. Vardha Rao vs. State of Karnataka (Supra ). ( 8 ) IN the instant case as stated above that the respondent no. 3 who was holding the post in question for two years and eight months and he was transferred to another department by the order dated 19th July 1993 and within a span of about 1 1 months the respondent government is bringing him back on the same post. The guidelines speak that an officer who remains on the post for three years or more than three years should not be posted on the same post. Mr. Sompura learned AGP submitted that the respondent no. 3 had not completed three years on this post and therefore there is no breach of guidelines. If we take the argument of Mr. Sompura as logical then the question would be that if the respondent no. 3 was very efficient officer and fir officer for the post in question and inevitable looking to his efficiency why he was subjected to transfer before he completed three years on this post? the earlier argument of Mr. Sompura as regards efficiency of the petitioner he being the only promoted Ex-cadre officer would not be able to hold this post efficiently is an absurd argument. Mr. Oza submitted that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste and he is the first person who has been appointed on this post. There is no material on record to show that the petitioner would not be able to hold to this post. Mr. Oza submitted that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste and he is the first person who has been appointed on this post. There is no material on record to show that the petitioner would not be able to hold to this post. The recent promotion ex-cadre post is as sufficient evidence to show that he is an efficiently he earned reputation and got promotion in Ex-cadre which is directly awarded to the officers after scrutinising the entire service record or the officer. The customary prescription that the petitioner being a scheduled case person he would not Justify the duties entrusted to him has no place in democratic government. All officers irrespective of caste creed or colour are equal and if there is anything against such officer it should be brought on record and to justify the same. But imaginary doubt create from their customary prejudices itself is a biased attitude against Scheduled Caste Officers and they ar being victimised by the vested interests and influential persons. This is evidence from the letter addressed by the Under Secretary to Government to the Govt. Pleader on 7 October 1993 which is on record showing willingness by stating that the Government would sympathetically consider the request of the petitioner to post him on any available post either at Gandhinagar or Ahmedabad keeping in view the administrative exigencies and public interest. If the Government has no objection in keeping the petitioner at Gandhinagar or at Ahmedabad and has already cancelled the impugned transfer order and another person has been posted at Amreli the respondent government has hailed to justify the reasons for not continuing the petitioner on the same post at Gandhinagar. If under these circumstances the Court were left to draw an inference which has been alleged in the petition that the impugned transfer order was passed with some ulterior and that too to accommodate respondent no. 3 only it is justified. The respondents failed to justify re-transfer of respondent no. 3 on the same post within a period of one and half months. If he was an inevitable person or most wanted person on this post the government ought to have frankly admitted and would have stated in their affidavit-in-reply that without respondent no. 3 the department would not function. The letter addressed by the Under Secretary to the Assistant Govt. If he was an inevitable person or most wanted person on this post the government ought to have frankly admitted and would have stated in their affidavit-in-reply that without respondent no. 3 the department would not function. The letter addressed by the Under Secretary to the Assistant Govt. Pleader speaks volumes that there is na intention of the Executive not to allow the petitioner to hold this post for the reason best known to them. It is true that normally the Court does not interfere with the order of transfer as observed above. But this is a case where the Court is compelled to interfere with the transfer order otherwise the court will be failing in its duty in doing justice when the impugned order of transfer smells of mala fides and is passed with some ulterior motive to accommodate respondent no. 3. ( 9 ) IN the result this petition is allowed. The impugned order of transfer dated 1st September 1993 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed not to disturb the present posting of the petitioner. ( 10 ) PENDING the petition the petitioner was allowed to continue on the post in question by interim relief. Therefore there is no question to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to resume said post. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs. Petition Allowed. .