JUDGMENT 1. As the questions of law and fact are common, cases in the Schedule appended hereto, were heard along with this case and are being decided by this judgment. It is made clear that challenge to individual inquiries under the relevant Service Rules or institution of criminal proceeding is not considered and it is left open for the petitioners to challenge it, if so advised, by filing separate writ petitions. 2. Petitioners have challenged circulars dated 13.7.2001 and 26.7.2001 as also instructions/clarification issued thereof by the Department of Personnel Government of Rajasthan vide circulars dated 10.8.2001, 3.9.2001, 13.9.2001, and the consequent transfer orders issued by the Government.Circular dated 13.7.2001 regarding field posting of Government servants facing criminal charges/departmental enquiry under R.16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1958 (for short "R.16 CCA") on account of embezzlement/misappropriation of funds causing financial loss to the Government and serious financial irregularities, reads thus "It has been observed that Government servants who are facing criminal charges/departmental enquiry under R.16 CCA on account of embezzlement of Government funds, misappropriation of funds, causing financial loss to the State Government or serious financial irregularities are sometimes given field postings or other postings which involve direct contact with the public or handling of cash. Not only does this send a wrong signal amongst the people at large, it is also not desirable that such Government servants should be given field postings or other postings involving direct contact with the public or handling of cash till such time as they have been cleared in the criminal proceedings/departmental enquiry pending against them. The matter has been considered by the State Government and it has been decided that all those Government servants who are facing criminal charges/departmental enquiry under R.16 CCA on account of embezzlement of Government funds, misappropriation of funds, causing financial loss to the State Government, or serious financial irregularities should not be given field postings or other postings which involve direct contact with the public or handling of cash. All principal Secretaries to Government/Secretaries to Government and Head of Departments are requested to immediately prepare a complete list of Government servants. All principal Secretaries to Government/Secretaries to Government and Head of Departments are requested to immediately prepare a complete list of Government servants. Therefore, it may be ensured that if any such Government servant has been given a field posting or a posting which involves direct contact with the public, he should be immediately shifted from his present post to some post other than a field post/post involving direct contact with the public or which involve handling of cash....." By this circular the Government wants to restrain the Government servants facing criminal charges/departmental enquiry under R.16 CCA on account of embezzlement of Government funds, misappropriation of funds, causing financial loss to the State Government, or serious financial irregularities from being posted on a post involving direct contact with the public or handling of cash. 3. Circular dated 26.7.2001, issued in continuation to the circular dated 13.7.2001, reads thus "...the State Government has further decided that all those Government servants who have already been convicted in any criminal proceeding or who have been penalised with any major penalty in departmental enquiry under R.16 CCA on account of charges of embezzlement of Government funds, misappropriation of funds, causing financial loss to the State Government, or serious financial irregularities, should also not be given field postings or other postings which involve direct contact with the public or handling of cash." Thus, this circular further restrains from posting Government servants convicted in any criminal proceeding or penalised with any major penalty in departmental enquiry for the charges mentioned in the circular, on post involving direct contact with the public or handling of cash. 4. By circular dated 10.8.2001, all Principal Secretaries to Government/ Secretaries to Government and Heads of Departments were requested to immediately prepare a complete list of such Government servants and to ensure that if any of such Government servant has been given a field posting or a posting which involves direct contact with the public or handling of cash, he/she is immediately shifted from his/her present post to some post other than a field post / post involving direct contact with the public and handling of cash. They were also required to prepare a permanent register for this purpose and to furnish a certificate to the Department of Personnel certifying that action has been completed in accordance with the directions contained in the above mentioned two circulars. 5. They were also required to prepare a permanent register for this purpose and to furnish a certificate to the Department of Personnel certifying that action has been completed in accordance with the directions contained in the above mentioned two circulars. 5. Circular dated 3.9.2001 reads thus "...A month and a half has already elapsed but we have still not received any response from most of the Departments. The matter has been reviewed by the State Government and it has been decided that all the Government servants who fall under the categories specified in the above mentioned circulars are still posted against field posts or other posts which involve direct contact with the public or handling of cash should immediately be placed Awaiting Posting Orders. This action may be completed within three days from the receipt of this circular."This circular required that the Government servants falling within the zone of consideration under the circulars issued on 13.7.2001 and 26.7.2001 be put under awaiting posting orders till they be posted at a post other than a field post / post involving direct contact with the public or handling of cash. On the doubts being raised by the Secretaries to Government / Heads of Departments as to whether those Government servants, who were issued charge sheets under R.16 CCA on charges relating to embezzlement of Government funds, misappropriation of funds, or other financial irregularities but have finally been penalised with a minor penalty, should also not be given field postings or other postings involving direct contract with the public or handling of cash, the Department of Personnel issued circular dated 13.9.2001 with the clarification that if an officer has been penalised with only a minor penalty the implication would be that he has not been found guilty of any such serious charges. Therefore, only those Government servants who have been penalised with a major penalty are not to be given field postings. It has also been clarified that the direction for placing them under "Awaiting Posting Orders" was issued only in view of the fact that deciding of their transfers / postings may to take much more time. 6. Therefore, only those Government servants who have been penalised with a major penalty are not to be given field postings. It has also been clarified that the direction for placing them under "Awaiting Posting Orders" was issued only in view of the fact that deciding of their transfers / postings may to take much more time. 6. The aforesaid circulars clearly indicate the policy of government, that those Government servants who have been punished with major penalties in a criminal proceeding or departmental enquiry under R.16 CCA on account of embezzlement of Government funds, misappropriation of funds, or other financial irregularities, shall not be given field postings which involve direct contact with the public or handling of cash. It was further clarified that till such Government servants are given a non-field posting or a post other than which involves direct contract with the public or handling of cash, they be placed under "Awaiting Posting Orders". Intention of the Government was very clear that such Government servants be immediately removed from the posts involving direct contact with the public or handling of cash. 7. Submissions of the counsel for petitioners are to the effect that by virtue of the circulars issued, the transfers made of petitioners are not transfer orders simpliciter but the orders are tainted with the element of punishment imposed on the petitioners without they being found guilty either in a criminal proceeding or departmental enquiry under R. 16 CCA. Discrimination is made between Government servants imposed with minor penalties on being found guilty in criminal proceeding or departmental enquiry under R.16 CCA and Government servants facing criminal proceeding or departmental enquiry under R. 16 CCA. On the other hand submission of Mr. Mathur, Additional Advocate General, is to the effect that under the circulars, Government implemented its policy to keep away the servants found guilty of embezzlement of Government funds, misappropriation of funds, causing Financial loss to the State Government, or serious financial irregularities, in a criminal proceeding or departmental enquiry under R.16. CCA. The circulars also covered cases of the Government servants who are under the cloud on account of commencement of such criminal proceedings or departmental enquiry under R.16 CCA till exonerated or a minor penalty is imposed on them. CCA. The circulars also covered cases of the Government servants who are under the cloud on account of commencement of such criminal proceedings or departmental enquiry under R.16 CCA till exonerated or a minor penalty is imposed on them. The circulars issued by the Government is a reflection of the policy of Government whereby the Government wants to give an impression to the public in general that it wants to give clean administration and, therefore, the decision taken by the Government is in public interest. 8. It is settled law that transfer, which is an incidence of service, is not to be interfered with by the courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or vitiated by malice or infraction of any professed norm or principal governing the transfer. Transfers made by the competent authority for administrative reasons cannot be subjected to judicial review. A Government servant who has been employed by the Government is bound by the condition implied that he will be transferred and posted by the Government as per requirement of the government. It is only in the case when a transfer is effected by mala fide or against the rules, the court will interfere with the order of transfer. Transfer orders issued of the petitioners are under a policy decision taken by Government and unless and until it is established that the decision taken by the Government as a policy is not sustainable in law, the transfer orders issued of the petitioners posting them where direct contact with the public or handling of cash is not involved, cannot be said to be an action of the Government penalising the petitioners. 9. In Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.), Sindri & others v. Union of India & others, (1981) 1 SCC 568 , at page 584 while upholding the decision to sell, it was observed "...We certainly agree that Judicial interference with the administration cannot be meticulous in our Montesquien system of separation of powers. The court cannot usurp or abdicate, and the parameters of judicial review must be clearly defined and never exceeded. If the directorate of a Government company has acted Fairly , even if it has faltered in its wisdom, the court cannot, as a super- auditor, take the board if directors to task. The court cannot usurp or abdicate, and the parameters of judicial review must be clearly defined and never exceeded. If the directorate of a Government company has acted Fairly , even if it has faltered in its wisdom, the court cannot, as a super- auditor, take the board if directors to task. This function is limited to testing whether the administrative action has been fair and free from the taint of unreasonbleness and has substantially complied with the norms of procedure set for it by rules of public administration." In Premium Granites & another v. State of TN & others, (1994) 2 SCC 691 , while considering the court's powers in interfering with the policy decision, it was observed at page 715 as under "54. It is not the domain of the court to embark upon unchartered ocean of public policy in an exercise to consider as to whether the particular public policy is wise or a better public policy can be evolved. Such exercise must be left to the discretion of the executive and legislative authorities as the case may be..." While considering the validity of the industrial policy of the State of Madhya Pradesh relating to the agreements entered into for supply of sal seeds for extracting oil in M.P. Oil Extraction & another v. State of M.P. & others, (1997) 7 SCC 592 , the court at page 610 held as follows "....The executive authority of the state must be held to be within its competence to frame a policy for the administration of the state. Unless the policy framed is absolutely capricious and, not being informed by any reason whatsoever, can be clearly held to be arbitrary and found on mere ipse dixit of the executive functionaries thereby offending Article 14 of the Constitution or such policy offends other constitutional provisions or comes into conflict with any statutory provisions, the Court cannot and should not out step its limit and tinker with the policy decision of the executive functionary of the state. This Court, in no uncertain terms, has sounded a note of caution by indicating that policy decision is in the domain of the executive authority of the state and the Court should not embark on the unchartered ocean of public policy and should not question the efficacy or otherwise of such policy so long the same does not offend any provision of the statute or the Constitution of India. The supremacy of each of the three organs of the state i.e. Legislature, executive and judiciary in their respective fields of operation needs to be emphasised. The power of judicial review of the executive and legislative action must be kept within the bounds of constitutional scheme so that there may not be any occasion to entertain misgivings about the role of judiciary in outstepping its limit by unwarranted judicial activism being very often talked of in these days. The democratic set-up to which the polity is so deeply committed, cannot function properly unless each of the three organs appreciate the need for mutual respect and supremacy in their respective fields." (emphasis added) The validity of the change of Government policy in regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses to its serving and retired employees came up for consideration before the apex court in State of Punjab & others v. Ram Ludhaya Bagga & others, (1998) 4 SCC 117 . The earlier policy upholding the reimbursement for treatment in a private hospital had been upheld by the Court but the State of Punjab changed this policy whereby, reimbursement of medical expenses incurred in a private hospital was only possible if such treatment was not available in any Government hospital. Dealing with the validity of the new policy, the court observed at page 129 as follows - "25. Now we revert to the last submissions, whether the new state policy is justified in not reimbursing an employee, his full medical expenses incurred on such treatment if incurred in any hospital in India not treatment, if incurred in any hospital in India not being a Government hospital in Punjab. Question is whether the new policy which is restricted by the financial constraints of the state to the rates in AIIMS would be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. So far as questioning the validity of governmental policy is concerned,. Question is whether the new policy which is restricted by the financial constraints of the state to the rates in AIIMS would be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. So far as questioning the validity of governmental policy is concerned,. in our view, it is not normally within the domain of any court, to weigh the pros and cons of the policy or to scrutinise it and test the degree of its beneficial or equitable disposition for the purpose of varying, modifying or annulling it, based on howsoever sound and good reasoning except where it is arbitrary or violative of any constitutional, statutory or any other provision of law. When Government forms its policy, it is based on a number of circumstances on facts, law including constraints based on its resources. It is also based on expert opinion. It would be dangerous if court is asked to test the utility, beneficial effect of the policy or its appraisal based on facts set out on affidavits. The Court would dissuade itself from entering into this realm which belongs to the executive. It is within this matrix that it is to be seen whether the new policy violates Article 21 when it restricts reimbursement on account of its financial constraints." 10. It is now well settled by the decisions of apex court that it is neither within the domain of courts nor the scope of judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or better public policy can be invoked. Nor are the courts inclined to strike down the policy at the behest of petitioners merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical.The policy decision taken by Government for the Government servants whose career is tainted with the charge of embezzlement of Government funds, misappropriation of funds, causing financial loss to the State Government, or serious financial irregularities, not to post them on the postings involving direct contact with the public or handling of cash, cannot be said to be arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable or against the constitutional and legal provisions. The policy of Government is in public interest and is for efficacious discharge of administrative functions and, therefore, cannot be said to be a policy framed without taking into consideration the interest of public in general. The policy of Government is in public interest and is for efficacious discharge of administrative functions and, therefore, cannot be said to be a policy framed without taking into consideration the interest of public in general. Whenever there is a clash between personal interest and public interest, the court shall upheld the public interest. The decision taken by the Government in transferring the petitioners is in accordance with law and does not require any interference by this court. Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.Writ Petitions Dismissed. *******