Judgment :- Petitioner and respondent No.3 are Civil Surgeons. Their speciality is Pediatrics. Petitioner is admittedly senior to the 3rd respondent and has longer service than him. 2. This Writ Petition has come to be filed as there is a clamour for posting by the petitioner and the 3rd respondent as Civil Surgeon and Pediatrician in the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Punalur. In regard to the controversy relating to the posting of a Civil Surgeon in the Speciality of Pediatrics in the Taluk Head Quarters, Punalur, this is the fourth writ petition filed before this Court wherein either the petitioner or the 3rd respondent figures as petitioner or respondent. Petitioner feels that a serious injustice has been done to him by the order of the 1st respondent declining his request for a posting at Punalur while preferring the 3rd respondent to that station. As per Ext.P8 Govt. Order dated 15/06/2005, the 1st respondent while issuing transfers and postings of Civil Surgeons, filled up the vacancy of Civil Surgeon by transferring and posting the 3rd respondent from Community Health Centre, Pathanapuram to Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Punalur. By the very same order, Government transferred the petitioner from Government Hospital, Thiruvalla to Community Health Centre, Pathanapuram which post fell vacant by the posting of the 3rd respondent at Punalur. 3. Petitioner has shown his inclination for a posting at Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Punalur as Civil Surgeon in the Speciality of Pediatrician. He filed Ext.P5 application in the prescribed proforma on 10/03/2005. Ext.P5 shows that the petitioner’s first preference at the time of general transfers was for a posting in the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Punalur in Kollam District. He has grounds to be stated, in order to justify his claim for posting at Punalur, more particularly, in preference to respondent No.3. The first and the foremost ground urged by him is that there remains only less than two years for him to retire from service. His date of superannuation is 31/03/2007. Clause (3) of Ext.P3 Govt. Order dated 28/05/1987 says that Medical Officers who have only two years to retire from service on superannuation will not normally be disturbed by transfer, and will, as far as possible, be posted to institutions of their choice, preference being given to those who retire earlier. His date of superannuation is 31/03/2007. Clause (3) of Ext.P3 Govt. Order dated 28/05/1987 says that Medical Officers who have only two years to retire from service on superannuation will not normally be disturbed by transfer, and will, as far as possible, be posted to institutions of their choice, preference being given to those who retire earlier. Clause (18) of Ext.P3 says that if there are more than one applicant for transfer for a particular post, first preference will be given to the Medical Officer who has only two years to retire, then to the person who had worked for the least period in the institution requested for, and then according to seniority. It is admitted position that respondent No.3 will not come within the above mentioned preferential clauses. Going by his age, respondent No.3 has more than 7 years to retire from service. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner is eligible to claim the benefit of causes 3 and 18 of Ext.P3. Petitioner, after attending the Post Graduate Course in Pediatrics, was reposted in the Govt. Hospital Thiruvalla as per Ext.P12 order dated 21/12/2002. He joined duty and has been continuing here until Ext.P8 order was issued by the Govt. In the light of the above fact, petitioner says that he is eligible to claim the benefit of Clause (6) of Ext.P3 Govt. Order which says that those rejoin duty on the expiry of leave or on completion of the period of a course/training, may be posted against open vacancies. However, such postings will be subject to review at the time of general transfer. Petitioner’s case is that he having been posted at Thiruvalla in Pathanamthitta District on return from training can apply at the time of general transfers for posting at Punalur, which is the place of his choice, and that the Govt. has got an obligation to review Ext.P12 order by which he was posted at Thiruvalla, so as to explore the possibility of granting the request of the petitioner for posting at Punalur at the time of general transfers. Petitioner has got a grievance that instead of utilizing his services and experience as a Pediatrics Civil Surgeon at the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, he has been transferred to a comparatively smaller institution like the Community Health Centre. Petitioner has got a grievance that instead of utilizing his services and experience as a Pediatrics Civil Surgeon at the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, he has been transferred to a comparatively smaller institution like the Community Health Centre. His seniority and length of service as a Civil Surgeon has been discarded despite he norms laid down in Ext.P3 vide clause (15) to the effect that those who have completed 20 years of service may not be posted, as far as possible, in Primary Health Centres and Rural Dispensaries unless on request. Petitioner has got more than 20 years of service as a Medical Officer and his request was for a posting at Punalur and therefore only in a case where it was impossible for the Govt., for justifiable reasons, to post him at Punalur, his option for posting in the places shown as choice numbers 2 and 3 was required to be considered. Petitioner relies on Ext.P3 to contend for the position that respondent No.3 who is far junior in the cadre of Civil Surgeon and who was promoted to the post of Civil Surgeon only very recently, ought not to have been accommodated in a place preferred by him, after discarding the better claim of the petitioner; viewed from any angle. Clause (17) of Ext.P3 is also relied on, by the petitioner to point out that Medical Officers, immediately on promotion are liable to be posted in an institution or station different from the one where they had been working in the feeder post. 4. Respondent No.3 entered service as Assistant Surgeon on 15/11/1985, whereas the petitioner entered service in that category three years prior to that, namely, on 16/07/1982. Respondent No.3 was promoted as Civil Surgeon on 25/07/2003 while he was working as Assistant Surgeon in the Taluk Hospital Punalur. He was posted at Civil Surgeon at District Hospital, Alappuzha. Long before that, the petitioner was promoted as Civil Surgeon. Though respondent No.3 joined duty at Alappuzha, he worked there only for a period of five months and was successful in getting transfer from Alappuzha and posting at Punalur as desired by him. Ext.P9 dated 20/12/2003 is the order transferring the 3rd respondent from Alappuzha to Punalur. Respondent No.3 prefers to work at Punalur and he expressed that desire even before his promotion as Civil Surgeon vide representation filed on 15/06/2003. Ext.P9 dated 20/12/2003 is the order transferring the 3rd respondent from Alappuzha to Punalur. Respondent No.3 prefers to work at Punalur and he expressed that desire even before his promotion as Civil Surgeon vide representation filed on 15/06/2003. He had approached the Hon’ble Minister for Health also to get a posting at Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Punalur. Representations filed by the 3rd respondent were considered favorably and he was posted at Punalur as per Ext.P9 order. Just before he got the expected order transferring him and posting him at Punalur, he had filed before this Court a writ petition which was disposed of as per Ext.R3(b) judgment. The relevant portion of that judgment reads: “Government Pleader was heard in the matter. He submits that the request made in Ext.P5 will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed as per the norms governing transfer. This is to be done with notice to the petitioner and within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that within five days of Ext.R3(b) judgment, respondent No.3 was given posting at Punalur. What is highlighted by the learned counsel is that the 3rd respondent and the Government wanted to make it appear that Ext.P9 was issued as directed by this Court, though actually the Government was waiting to extend a favour to the 3rd respondent even without the Court Order. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that transfer norms were flouted and discarded to issue Ext.P9 order, though it was styled as one purported to have been issued as an order in due compliance of Ext.R3(b) judgment of this Court. Ext.P9 order gave rise to serious grievance for Dr. Mani, a Civil Surgeon, indubitably senior to the 3rd respondent. He was constrained to file writ petition before this Court challenging Ext.P9 order to the extend he was transferred from Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Punalur just to make place for respondent No.3. This Court considered the grievance of Dr. Mani in the context of the fact that he was fairly senior to the 3rd respondent and was due to retire from service, shortly. Writ Petition filed by Dr. Mani was disposed of by Ext.P10 judgment. This Court considered the grievance of Dr. Mani in the context of the fact that he was fairly senior to the 3rd respondent and was due to retire from service, shortly. Writ Petition filed by Dr. Mani was disposed of by Ext.P10 judgment. Paragraph 4 the operative part of Ext.P10 judgment, reads as follows: “The petitioner’s request for a posting in his home station appears to be justified. Therefore, the Government will examine as to whether it is possible to give him accommodation at Punalur without disturbing the third respondent. If, as between the claims of the petitioner and the third respondent, the petitioner has any superior claims, it may also be permissible for the Government to pass appropriate orders giving a posting to the petitioner at Punalur. Appropriate orders are to be passed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment and after hearing the parties.” 6. Evidently, Dr. Mani had superior claims over the 3rd respondent and hence the Government had to pass Ext.P11 order transferring Dr. Mani back to Punalur while posting the 3rd respondent in the Community Health Centre, Pathanapuram. Thereafter, when Ext.P8 general transfers and postings were ordered, Dr. Mani was transferred from Punalur and was posted at Kottarakkara which place he preferred to Punalur. It is in that vacancy that the 3rd respondent has been accommodated as per Ext.P8 order. In the meantime and before Ext.P8 order was passed, petitioner herein had approached this Court by filing WP(C).10398/2005 which was disposed of by this Court as per Ext.P6 judgment on 29/03/2005. The direction given in Ext.P6 was that Ext.P5 application filed by the petitioner shall be considered at the time of general transfers and postings of Medical Officers, particularly, Civil Surgeons in Govt. Hospitals. 7. Petitioner contends that despite the direction issued by this Court to consider the case of the petitioner, due consideration was not given as required by law and justice. Instead, preference was given to the 3rd respondent ignoring the fact that the petitioner’s claim, viewed from any angle, was the superior one when compared to that of respondent No.3. It is pointed out that respondent No.3 who had not even filed a formal application seeking for a posting at Punalur was favoured with a transfer order to the very place he had chosen on earlier occasions. 8. It is pointed out that respondent No.3 who had not even filed a formal application seeking for a posting at Punalur was favoured with a transfer order to the very place he had chosen on earlier occasions. 8. Petitioner has got a blemishless record of service. There are no complaints about his performance as a Civil Surgeon. His case deserves to be considered in the same manner as that of Dr. Mani as he is senior to the 3rd respondent and going by the norms he has all the plus points. Superior claims of the petitioner over the 3rd respondent, in many respects, are undeniable. Not even a single factor relevant for considering transfers and postings given upper-hand to the 3rd respondent over that of the petitioner. This is the picture presented by the learned counsel about the merits of the petitioner’s case. 9. Separate counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. Another counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent it is stated that Dr. Mani was transferred and posted at Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Punalur, having regard to the fact that he was due to retire from service. This evidently shows that in the matter of transfers and postings it is duly recognised by the respondents also that a person who is due to retire from service has got an edge over another person who cannot claim a similar benefit. Government feels that what was done in the case of Dr. Mani is correct and in accordance with law. Government, however, wants to justify its action in bringing back the 3rd respondent to Punalur relying on the observation contained in Ext.P.10 judgment that Dr. Mani may be given accommodation without disturbing the 3rd respondent, if possible. According to the respondents, the 3rd respondent had to be disturbed in order to accommodate Dr. Mani. Therefore, when Dr. Mani was subsequently given a better accommodation in another place, and when the post held by him became vacant, Government have got the obligation to see that the 3rd respondent is posted once again in the very same post. 10. Respondent No.3 does not have any effective answer with regard to the superior claims of the petitioner based on transfer norms. 10. Respondent No.3 does not have any effective answer with regard to the superior claims of the petitioner based on transfer norms. He would, however, claim, vide statement made in his counter affidavit, that while implementing Ext.P10 judgment, an assurance was given to him by the Additional Secretary to Govt. that he will be given transfer and posting as and when vacancy arises in future at Taluk Hospital, Punalur. But no such assurance finds a place in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. That apart, it is improper for the respondents to put forward a case that any officer or employee in Govt. service is eligible to get an assurance from the Department that he will be given a posting against any particular vacancy. Who should be posted in the vacant place is a matter which should be considered taking into account all relevant aspects that will come up for consideration at the relevant time and if the respondents have acted on the basis of any such assurance, that is a factor which would vitiate Ext.P8 order. 11. It is evident from the sequence of events that when Ext.P10 judgment was implemented, Dr. Mani had to be posted as Civil Surgeon in the Taluk Hospital, Punalur and the 3rd respondent had to be transferred and posted in another place. By doing so. Ext.P1 judgment stood fully complied with. When the need for issuing general transfers and postings arose subsequently, the Govt. was bound to consider, on a clean slate, the claims of all eligible persons including that of the petitioner herein. This was so, for the further reason that this Court had issued a direction as per Ext.P6 judgment that the petitioner’s case should be considered at the time of general transfer. Respondents did not have a case that going by the various clauses referred to by the petitioner in the guidelines, the 3rd respondent can put forward any superior claim over the request made by the petitioner. If guidelines have any relevance, there cannot be any doubt that the petitioner’s claim is far superior to that of the 3rd respondent on all fours. Viewed from any angle, respondents were bound to consider the request made by the petitioner favourably, as was done in the case of Dr. If guidelines have any relevance, there cannot be any doubt that the petitioner’s claim is far superior to that of the 3rd respondent on all fours. Viewed from any angle, respondents were bound to consider the request made by the petitioner favourably, as was done in the case of Dr. Mani, because there were several aspects which required such a consideration while issuing orders of general transfers and postings. Therefore, the petitioner is right in submitting that he was treated unfairly and unjustifiably, by the 1st respondent. 12. It is true that as far as administrative matters like transfers and postings are concerned, the 1st respondent shall have enough freedom to make proper arrangements. But it is equally true that such freedom or discretion shall not be unbridied or unfettered. In other words, the exercise of discretion shall not be arbitrary or resulting in negation of justice or violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This is not a case where the 3rd respondent has been posted at Punalur on the ground that public interest or exigencies of service demanded such a posting. It is only in cases where the Government wants to justify its action as having been done in public interest or exigencies of service that immunity from interference by Courts can be successfully claimed. Evidently, this is a case where the impugned order was issued to give a convenient posting to the 3rd respondent. It is not a case where he was entitled to claim any such preference over the petitioner either on compassionate grounds or on grounds that could be founded on the transfer norms. Hence, I have no hesitation to hold that the 1st respondent went wrong in posting the 3rd respondent at the Taluk Hospital, Punalur disregarding the guidelines issued by the Govt. itself as per Ext.P3 order. Irrelevant consideration have weighed with the 1st respondent while issuing the impugned order. 13. I am of the view that this is a case where interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is called for. Transfer and posting of the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P8 is therefore liable to be set aside. I do so. The 1st respondent shall reconsider the case of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent in the light of the superior claims put forward by the petitioner based on Ext.P3 and other relevant factors. Transfer and posting of the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P8 is therefore liable to be set aside. I do so. The 1st respondent shall reconsider the case of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent in the light of the superior claims put forward by the petitioner based on Ext.P3 and other relevant factors. The 1st respondent shall do so without being misguided by the assumption that it is bound by any assurance given to the 3rd respondent that he will be given posting at Punalur, whatever may be the superior claims of other Medical Officers. The 1st respondent shall not proceed on the wrong notion that as per Ext.P10 judgment, the 1st respondent has got an obligation to post the 3rd respondent at Punalur and none else. Fresh orders shall be passed by the 1st respondent within three weeks on receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till them. Respondent No.3 and the petitioner will continue in the very same places where they are working as on today. Writ Petition is allowed as above.