Judgment S.K.Katriar, J. 1. Heard Mr. V. Shrinath and Ms. Anita Sinha, learned Advocates for the petitioner, and Mr. Amreshwar Sahay, learned G.A., for the respondents. 2. The writ petitioner by this writ petition prays for quashing of that portion of the order as contained in notification contained in memo No. 311(11) health, dated 30-6-98 (Annexure-3), insofar as it relates to the petitioner whereby he has been transferred as the Tutor at Patliputra Medical College, Dhanbad, and for a further writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus calling upon respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to give to the petitioner and re-designate him as Assistant Professor of Micro-biology, and for a further writ/order/direction for quashing that portion of the notification contained in memo No. 886 (17) (health), dated 17-8-98 (Annexure-2), whereby the petitioner is sought to be put under suspension for allegedly violating the aforesaid order of transfer dated 30-6-98 (Annexure-3). 3. According to the petitioner, he is at present as Tutor in the cadre of Bihar Medical Education Service who was posted as such in the Department of Micro-biology, Ranchi Medical College Hospital, Ranchi, and has by the impugned order dated 30-6-98 (Annexure-3) been transferred as a Tutor in the Department of Microbiology, Patliputra Medical College, Dhanbad. It may be stated that the impugned order dated 30-6-98 deals with other teaching Doctors as well with which the present writ petition is not concerned. According to the further case of the petitioner, he has abruptly been served with the aforesaid order dated 17-3-98 (Annexure-2), putting the petitioner under suspension for his refusal to carry out the aforesaid transfer order 30-6-98 (Annexure-3) in anticipation of initiation of departmental proceeding. The petitioners further case on the strength of a Government resolution contained in memo No. 176 (17), dated 20-6-96 (Annexure-1) is that he is entitled to be designated as Assistant Professor after having put in three years on the post of Tutor. The petitioner has already put in three years of service and has not so far been designated as Assistant Professor and yet has been transferred on the same post to Dhanbad to his detriment. 4. In the background of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, Mr. V. Shivnath, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order of transfer insofar it as relates to him will act to his great detriment. 4. In the background of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, Mr. V. Shivnath, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order of transfer insofar it as relates to him will act to his great detriment. Relying on the averments made in para 18 of the writ petition, he submitted that the Medical College at Dhanbad has been derecognised by the Medical Council of India. He further submitted that the aforesaid resolution dated 20-6-96(Annexure-1), clearly lays down that a Tutor after having put in three years of service on this post shall be designated as Assistant Professor which has been denied to him and, therefore, he can be transferred only after he is designated as Assistant Professor. Relying on a Single Judge Judgment of this Court reported in 1993 (1) PLJR 89 Ram Ashis Ram V/s. Rajendra Agriculture University, he further submitted that no employee can be transferred from one cadre to another without his consent even though he may not suffer any financial loss. He submitted that just prior to the impugned order of transfer in the cadre of Ranchi College, whereas he is being transferred to a different cadre altogether, namely, the cadre of the Dhanbad Medical College entirely against his wishes. Relying on the averments made in paras 6 and 7 of his rejoinder filed on 17-3-99, he submitted that under similar circumstances one Dr. (Smt.) Punam Prasad has been similarly transferred to the Dhanbad Medical College and this Court had stayed the operation of the order of transfer dated 22-6-98. He submitted that the Dhanbad Medical College being an unrecognised college and not a post-graduate Medical College, the impugned order of transfer will act to the prejudice of the petitioner and to add to the same is the refusal on the part of the respondent-authorities to designate him as Assistant Professor. The petitioner further submitted that he has no objection if he is transferred to a recognised medical college. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that he should be redesignated as Asstt. Professor first and then can be transferred to any recognised medical college. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that once it is held that the impugned order of transfer is bad in law, it automatically follows that the impugned order of suspension dated 17-8-98 (Annexure-2) is also bad in law. Professor first and then can be transferred to any recognised medical college. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that once it is held that the impugned order of transfer is bad in law, it automatically follows that the impugned order of suspension dated 17-8-98 (Annexure-2) is also bad in law. It was also submitted that the impugned order of suspension is otherwise bad in law and should be quashed. 6. Learned G.A. in reply submitted that is is wholly incorrect to state that there is cadre of teaching Doctors collegewise. The correct position is that there are two services of Doctors covering the entire State. The first is Bihar State Health Services which comprises of the Doctors whose primary duty is to look after the health of the citizens and are posted in hospitals and medical dispensaries spread over the State and with which the present petitioner is not concerned. The second to which the petitioner belongs cover all the teaching Doctors posted in the various Government medical colleges all over the State and whose preliminary function is to do the teaching job in medical sciences in the Government medical colleges of the State of Bihar. The petitioner belongs to this and is in one uniform service all over the State. Therefore, the petitioners transfer from one Government medical college to another medical college in the same speciality is undoubtedly a transfer within the cadre. Learned G.A. further submitted that the petitioner has already completed 5 years as a Tutor in the Department of Micro-biology in the Medical College at Ranchi, as is manifest from para 10 of the counter-affidavit. He next submitted that by transfer to an unrecognised college, the petitioner would never suffer. It is primarily the students who will suffer because they run the risk of not getting a recognised degree. The learned G.A. next contended on the strength of the averments made in Paragraphs 11 and 14 of the counter-affidavit that the transfer of the petitioner along with others is really in obedience and observance of the order dated 9-12-98 of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4079/98 Dr. The learned G.A. next contended on the strength of the averments made in Paragraphs 11 and 14 of the counter-affidavit that the transfer of the petitioner along with others is really in obedience and observance of the order dated 9-12-98 of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4079/98 Dr. Ajit Kumar V/s. State of Bihar, whereby the High Court has given a direction that all the Doctors who are posted for 5 years or more should forthwith be transferred, and steps should be taken to transfer the teaching Doctors to the unrecognised medical colleges so that recognition is restarted. In other words, the petitioners transfer along with others is really in implementation of the orders of the High Court. Relying on the strength of averments made in para 9 of the counter-affidavit, the learned G.A. further submitted that the petitioner by the impugned order of transfer shall not suffer in any way whatsoever. His salary, perquisites, position, prospects of promotion and all other benefits shall continue to be the same. He next submitted that the impugned order of transfer is undoubtedly a bona fide order of transfer, inexigency of service, in true observance of the directions of the High Court, in an effort to fill up all the vacant posts of the unrecognised medical college in Bihar. It is well settled by a long line of judgments of high authority that there are very limited grounds on which an order of transfer can be interfered with by Courts and the petitioner has not made the slightest attempt to bring the impugned order of transfer within the limited and exceptional circumstances. 7. Learned G.A. next submitted that the order of suspension is a disjointed cause of action and is not consequential to the dominant relief sought for in the writ petition, namely, quashing the impugned order of transfer and is, therefore, fit to be rejected on this ground. In any case no ground has been made out for interference with the impugned order of transfer. 8. Learned C.A. submitted that insofar as the 3rd and the last relief is concerned, namely, the petitioners prayer to be designated as Asstt. Professor, this is also a disjointed cause of action and has no connection whatsoever with the dominant relief prayed for in the writ petition nor is consequential thereto. 8. Learned C.A. submitted that insofar as the 3rd and the last relief is concerned, namely, the petitioners prayer to be designated as Asstt. Professor, this is also a disjointed cause of action and has no connection whatsoever with the dominant relief prayed for in the writ petition nor is consequential thereto. He very fairly submitted that the petitioner shall be considered far the post of Asstt. Professor in due course and in accordance with law. This prayer is fit to be rejected also on the ground that no discrimination is alleged. He submitted that the petitioner has cited the case of Dr. Lakshman Lal who was a Tutor is Bio-Chemistry, and was designated as Asstt. Professor according to the petitioner just on completion of 3 years. Learned G. A, in reply took through the contents of para 16 of the counter-affidavit read with Annexure-1 that the said Dr. Lakshman Lal was designated as Asstt. Professor because there was a vacant post in his speciality when he had completed 3 years of service, and also because of his suitability and fitness. Learned C.A. further submitted that Annexure-1 cannot be read in the manner suggested by the petitioner. If correctly read, the same says that no Tutor can be designated unless he completes a minimum of 3 years as a Tutor which, therefore, prescribes the eligibility criterion. It was further submitted that the writ petition on this score suffers from vagueness and lacks in reasonable details. There is not knowing whether or not the department of Bio-chemistry and Micro-biology are the same or different Departments, not any attempt has been made in the writ petition to make a comparative study of the petitioner and the said. Dr. Laskshman Lal. 9. Mr. Anita Siriha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in her lucid and forceful reply to the submissions of the learned G.A. submitted that the impugned order of transfer was never served on the petitioner. He came to know of it when the impugned order of suspension marked Annexure-2 was served on his wife on 4-9-98 whereby he was placed under suspension forthwith, as is manifest from para. 14 of the writ petition. He, therefore, never had the opportunity of carrying out the order of transfer. He came to know of it when the impugned order of suspension marked Annexure-2 was served on his wife on 4-9-98 whereby he was placed under suspension forthwith, as is manifest from para. 14 of the writ petition. He, therefore, never had the opportunity of carrying out the order of transfer. Relying on a judgment of the Supreme Court -- , she lastly submitted that no show-cause notice was served on the petitioner before the impugned order of suspension was served on him, 10. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court is clearly of the view that this writ petition is fit to be dismissed on all the three counts. The impugned order of transfer first. The petitioner has undoubtedly completed 5 years as Tutor in the Rajendra Medical College Hospital and, therefore, can be transferred in the same discipline to any one of the Government medical colleges in Bihar. The impugned order of transfer is undoubtedly a bona fide order of transfer, in the exigency of administration, and is in really in due obedience and observance of the orders of the High Court. It is a bona fide and genuine attempt to till up all the vacant posts of Patliputra Medical College, Dhanbad, in an effort to get back recognition. The petitioner is equally incorrect in his submission that this is a transfer from one cadre to another. It is undoubtedly a transfer within the same cadre. The petitioner has not laid the factual foundation for the submission that the impugned order of transfer is from one cadre to another. It is equally incorrect to state that the petitioner will suffer because of his transfer to an unrecognised college. It is really the students who will suffer in an unrecognised medical college. The petitioner shall get just the same salary, perquisites, and other benefits of office on his transfer. Insofar as the petitioners contention that he has no objection in being transferred to a recognised college is concerned, this Court is convinced that it is not a bona fide submission. It is only a clever and subtle play to get. the impugned order of transfer insofar as it concerns the petitioner quashed and gain time for his continuance in the Ranchi Medical College. It is only a clever and subtle play to get. the impugned order of transfer insofar as it concerns the petitioner quashed and gain time for his continuance in the Ranchi Medical College. Learned G.A. has rightly contended that the petitioner has not been able to make out any case for interference by this Court with a transfer order on the very limited grounds available to him in writ jurisdiction. This Court also rejects the submission of the petitioner that he became aware of the impugned order of transfer for the first time when impugned order of suspension was served on him on 4-9-98, being a self-serving and wholly unsubstantiated statement of the petitioner. The impugned order of transfer contained in Annexure-3 insofar as it relates to the petitioner is hereby upheld. 11. Insofar as the petitioners prayer for re-designation as Asstt. Professor is concerned, the same is fit to be rejected on the ground that it is a disjointed cause of action and is not consequential to the dominant relief sought for in the writ petition. This Court, therefore, declares this relief to be beyond the frame of the present writ petition. It must in all fairness to the petitioner be stated that it will be open to the petitioner to agitate this issue separately, if so advised. 12. Insofar as the third relief relating to the impugned order of suspension dated 17-8-98 (Annexure-2) is concerned, this Court is clearly of the view that the same is also a disjointed cause of action not being consequential to the dominant relief sought for in the writ petition, in beyond the frame of the writ petition, and is hereby rejected. The petitioner will be entitled to raise this issue separately, if so advised. 13. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed with respect to the impugned order of transfer. The impugned order of transfer dated 30-6-98 (Annexure-3), insofar as the same relates to the petitioner whereby he has been transferred to Patliputra Medical College, Dhanbad, is hereby upheld. The petitioner has really made himself liable for disciplinary proceeding for his refusal to carry out the order of transfer. The impugned order of transfer dated 30-6-98 (Annexure-3), insofar as the same relates to the petitioner whereby he has been transferred to Patliputra Medical College, Dhanbad, is hereby upheld. The petitioner has really made himself liable for disciplinary proceeding for his refusal to carry out the order of transfer. The respondent-authorities are reminded of the judgment of the Privy Council reported in A.I.R. 1930 P.C. 118 Alexandre Bouzouvou V/s. The Ottoman Bank, wherein it has been held that an employee is bound to obey and carry out a transfer order and his disobedience can justifiably be treated by the employer as a faute grave making the servant liable for dismissal. As to the relief relating to the impugned order of suspension is concerned, the prayer is held to be beyond the frame of the present writ petition. The issue relating to the petitioners designation as Asstt. Professor is also found to be beyond the frame of the present writ petition. This Court is convinced that it is on the whole a frivolous writ petition and is, therefore, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 1,000.00 . The respondent-authorities shall recover the same from the petitioners salary at the earliest possible opportunity.