1. At the very out set, it needs to be no­ticed that this petition had come up for consid­eration on 15.03.2001, 27.03.2001 and 29.03.2001 but had to be adjourned due to non-appearance of the counsel for the petitioner who had abstained from the work because of the strike of the Bar as contended by the petitioner. On 04.04.2001 it was again adjourned in hope of appearance of the counsel for the petitioner. The petition was listed on 23.04.2001 and the following order was passed:- "The petitioner, and learned counsel for the State were heard on 04.04.2001. However, it was adjourned to this day in hope of appear­ance of learned counsel for the petitioner. Counsel is not present. Mr.M.H.Attar submits that the petitioner has obtained an ad interim direction by supression of material facts. He, therefore, prays for vacation of the direction. One Dr. Gh.Nabi War has been posted in place of the petitioner as S.D.O. He submits that the interim directioin has the effect of staying his order of posting also. He, therefore, prays for modification of the order to enable him to join at Handwara in consequence to Govt. order No.91-ASH of 2000 dated: 15.09.2000. Con­sidering the nature of the controversy I am of the opinion that it will be in the interests of justice to decide the main petition. Till then the interim direction has to remain in force. Writ petition is admitted to hearing. Mr.M.H Attar adopts the reply already filed by him to the admissibility of the writ petition as counter. The petitioner has produced photostat copies of three documents which are also taken on record to be read as rejoinder. The petition to come up on 25.04.2001 for final arguments. The pe­titioner is directed to cause the appearance of his counsel for arguments." 2. The petitioners counsel did not enter appearance. Be it placed on record that the petitioner had sought further adjournment, for, his advocate had expressed inability to appear because of strike of the Bar. The prayer was opposed by LC for the respondents as also by the affected party. It is appropriate to notice that an ad interim direction, passed in favour of the petitioner, has undoubtedly the effect of stall­ing the implementation of the order of posting made by the Government in favour of Dr.Ghulam Nabi War. The prayer was opposed by LC for the respondents as also by the affected party. It is appropriate to notice that an ad interim direction, passed in favour of the petitioner, has undoubtedly the effect of stall­ing the implementation of the order of posting made by the Government in favour of Dr.Ghulam Nabi War. The said Doctor (here­inafter applicant for brevity) sought vacation of the ad interim direction through CMP 2370/ 2000. It needs to be noticed that by order dated 23.04.2001, the ad interim direction is enforce­able till disposal of the writ petition. This be­ing the position, the prayer for adjournment, if allowed would automatically protect the life of the ad interim direction. That apart law is set­tled that non-appearance of the counsel cannot come in the way of the court and the court is within its powers to proceed ahead notwith­standing such non appearance. No doubt, for justifiable reasons, adjournments may be granted, but question arises whether the court is obliged to adjourn a case because of the strike call given by the Bar. To answer the question it is advantageous to refer to the judicial pro­nouncement handed down by the apex court in Raman Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Subash Kapoor (AIR 2000 SC 207) (para 28): "The courts were sympathising with the Bar by not agreeing to dismiss the cases for de­fault of appearance of the striking advocates. Some courts might have conducted the cases even during the strike or boycott pe­riods or adjourned due to helplessness for not being in a position to decide the lis in the absence of the counsel but majority of the courts in the country have been impliedly sympathisers by not rising to the occasion by taking positive stand for the preservation of the high traditions of law and for continued restoration of the confi­dence of the common man in the institution of judiciary, it is not too late even now for the courts in the country to rise from the slumber and perform their duties without fear or favour particularly after the judg­ment of court in AIR 1998 SCW 3806. In action will surely contribute to the erosion of ethics and values in the legal profession. The defaulting courts may also be contribu­tory to the contempt of this court." 3. In action will surely contribute to the erosion of ethics and values in the legal profession. The defaulting courts may also be contribu­tory to the contempt of this court." 3. Applying the judgment supra there re­mains no scope to accomodate the striking law­yers by granting adjournments and being alive to the mandate of the judgment this court had no option but to decline further adjournment to the petitioner and the petition was taken up for final hearing. 4. Petitioner was heard LC for the respond­ents was also heard. Applicant too. This writ petition calls in question an order of transfer.. The facts material for disposal of this writ peti­tion may be briefly stated. The applicant (Dr.Gh.Nabi War) was transferred and posted as Sheep Development officer Leh, but order could not be given effect because he was de­clared physically unfit by the standing Medical Board, Govt. SMHS Hospital, Srinagar vide communication No. MED-BD/2004 dated: 09.06.2000. The communication forms annexure B to the reply filed by the State. Con­sequently, the applicant came to be posted as Sheep Development officer Handwara by Govt. order No.91-ASH of 2000 dated: 15.09.2000. The order forms annexure E to the CMP 2370/2000 filed by the applicant. It is seen from the record that the writ petition was filed by the petitioner herein on 18.09.2000 but he did not challenge the order of posting of the applicant although it was issued on 15.09.2000 appar­ently prior to institution of the writ petition. So much, so the petitioner did not implead the applicant as party to the writ petition. It also transpires from the record that the applicant had assumed the assignment on 19.09.2000 as is evident from annexure F to the CMP No.2370/2000, consequent upon which the respondent 4 had asked the Treasury Officer Kupwara to honour the Signatures of the applicant on the bills. Ex facie all the aforementioned events had occurred prior to 21.09.2000 which is the date when the matter had come up for consid­eration for the first time before the court yet these events were not brought to the notice of the court. In this backdrop, I have no hesitation to say that it is the supression of facts which has prompted the court to pass ad interim direc­tion in favour of the petitioner who has main­tained his position at a place of his choice on the strength of the said direction. 5. In this backdrop, I have no hesitation to say that it is the supression of facts which has prompted the court to pass ad interim direc­tion in favour of the petitioner who has main­tained his position at a place of his choice on the strength of the said direction. 5. The order is impugned mainly on the al­legation of favouritsim. To substantiate the contention it is averred that the impugned or­der was passed to gave way for the adjustment of the applicant in the valley. The contention is controverted by the respondents. It is sub­mitted that the applicants transfer to Ladakh had to be cancelled because of his physical un-fitness declared so by the standing Medical Board Government S.M.H.S. Hospital, Srinagar. In consequence thereto he came to be posted in place of the petitioner in the interest of administration. Suffice it to say mat such course of action is not beyond the competence of the Government. True it is that in the process the petitioner was also affected but no ill will can be attributed to the Government in the facts and circumstances of this case. Obviously, the chal­lenge is unfounded. 6. It was next contended that as per policy evolved by the Government for transfer of its employees to Ladakh, only a junior most Gov­ernment servant can be transferred to Ladakh, which would mean that when a junior is not available the post shall have to remain vacant. A policy of this type is bound to lead to an anomaly. Same being not endowed with rea­son is not justiciable, therefore, breach of such policy cannot give a cause to invoke the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this court under Art.226 of the Constitution. 7. It was further contended by the peti­tioner that he too has been declared unfit to serve at Ladakh. To justify the contention, he has produced a xerox copy of a certificate dated: 14.11.2000 issued by the Medical Board. This aspect of the case calls for consideration in the light of the fact that admittedly the appli­cant Dr.Ghulam Nabi War was transferred to Ladakh. His transfer was cancelled because of his physical unfitness. A communication form­ing annexure to the reply of the State reveals that there are two more doctors whose transfer was also sought to be cancelled on the basis of medical unfitness recorded by the Standings Medical Board of Government S.M.H.S. Hospital, Srinagar. His transfer was cancelled because of his physical unfitness. A communication form­ing annexure to the reply of the State reveals that there are two more doctors whose transfer was also sought to be cancelled on the basis of medical unfitness recorded by the Standings Medical Board of Government S.M.H.S. Hospital, Srinagar. It emerges from the aforementioned factual matrix that the State has evolved a principle not to force a Government servant to serve at Ladakh if he is medically unfit to serve there. The policy cannot be said to be irrational but is quite reasonable one because altitude sickness may at times prove fatal to the life of a Government servant. Press­ing into service the said principle the petitioner claims to be similarly situated with the appli­cant and other doctors of the department whose transfer has been cancelled. If it is a fact that petitioner is similarly situated with the appli­cant namely Dr. Ghulam Nabi War in all mate­rial respects, in such eventuality, the respond­ents cannot depart from the aforementioned principle of policy without justification and this aspect is required to be looked into by the com­petent authority. In this view of the matter it would be in the interests of justice to direct the respondents to consider and dispose of the pe­titioners representation for cancellation of his transfer to Ladakh within four weeks on the basis of the opinion of medical board already communicated provided the communication is not a fake one and till the disposal of represen­tation the petitioner be allowed to work in the valley against any available post. It shall be obligatory upon the petitioner to extend all pos­sible assistance and co-operation to the con­cerned authority during the process of consid­eration. If he fails to, the respondents shall be free to implement the impugned order of trans­fer. 8. Now a word about the relief prayed for by the petitioner seeking indulgence of the court for his continuation at Handwara. This con­tention is advanced simply to be rejected for the reason that a Government servant has no vested right to continue at a place of his choice. 8. Now a word about the relief prayed for by the petitioner seeking indulgence of the court for his continuation at Handwara. This con­tention is advanced simply to be rejected for the reason that a Government servant has no vested right to continue at a place of his choice. Even if it is assumed on a hypothesis that the medical ground pleaded by the petitioner is well founded and his transfer to Ladakh is cancelled by the Government yet he cannot claim his con­tinuation at present place of his posting but it is for the competent authority to post him at a place the exigencies of administration may de­mand. Needless to mention that the competent authority is supposed to exercise the power of transfer bonafidely, reasonably and m the in­terest of public purpose which includes inter­est of administration as well. 9. In the aforementioned backdrop this writ petition is disposed of alongwith the CMPs. Ad interim direction dated: 21.09.2000 is vacated. As a corollary Dr. Ghulam Nabi War is free to resume his duties on the strength of Govern­ment order No.91-ASH of 2000 dated: 15.09.2000.