JUDGMENT Janak Raj Kotwal, J. 1. Petitioner, Dr. Zahoor Ahmad Tantray, is a Medical Officer in the Indian Systems of Medicine under the Health and Medical Education Department of the State Government. He has impugned his transfer from Unani Dispensary, Ghulab-bagh, Srinagar to Unani Dispensary, Khaned in District Udhampur ordered by respondent No. 2-Director, Indian Systems of Medicine, Srinagar vide his order issued under endorsement No. DISM/Est./2894-96 dated 07.08.2013. Heard. I have perused the record. 2. Backgrounds facts, which are essential for disposal of this petition are these: 2.1. Petitioner, who had been appointed as Medical Officer in the respondent Department in the year 1993, was posted as Medical Officer in ISM (Unani) Dispensary, Ghulab-bagh, Srinagar in December, 2011. On 23.07.2013, he applied for 5 and 1/2 days "Medical leave" w.e.f. 23.07.2013 as according to him he was suffering from back pain (Disk problem). Assistant District Medical Officer, ISM & H, Srinagar/respondent No. 4, vide his communication No. Est/ISM/admoSgr/Gbl 618-20 dated 25.07.2013 asked the petitioner to furnish original leave application alongwith original OPD ticket of Bone and Joint Hospital, Srinagar for according consideration to his request for leave. On 07.08.2013, Assistant Director, Directorate of Indian Systems of Medicine, Srinagar/respondent No. 3, vide his communication No. DISM/Estt/2874 dated 07.08.2013 wrote to respondent No. 4 that leave case of the petitioner has been found not supported by relevant documents required under Civil Services (Leave) rules, 1979 and further that "before the case is examined, medical certificate in Form 3 given by an Medical authorities defining as clearly as possible the nature and probable duration of illness as required under rule 19 of leave Rules, 1979 is to be enclosed with the case and Medical Authority shall have to express opinion both as regards the facts of illness and as regards the necessity for the amount of leave". But on the same day respondent No. 4 vide his communication No. ADMO/ISM/Sgr/755-56 dated 07.08.2013 conveyed the petitioner the rejection of his application for leave and directed him to join immediately. 2.2 Petitioner assailed the rejection of the leave in SWP No. 1522/2013 before this Court. Learned Sr. AAG appearing for respondents in that case produced copy of order No. DISM/Est/2894-96 dated 07.08.2013 showing that petitioner had been transferred from Government ISM (Unani) Dispensary Gulab-bagh to Unani Dispensary Khaned. 2.2 Petitioner assailed the rejection of the leave in SWP No. 1522/2013 before this Court. Learned Sr. AAG appearing for respondents in that case produced copy of order No. DISM/Est/2894-96 dated 07.08.2013 showing that petitioner had been transferred from Government ISM (Unani) Dispensary Gulab-bagh to Unani Dispensary Khaned. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 19.08.2013 with the following directions: "In view of controversy involved and stand taken by learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to petitioner to submit a fresh representation with all the relevant documents through proper channel to respondents within a week's time. The respondents, on receipt of the petitioner's representation, shall decide the petitioner's case, strictly in accordance with rules, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this order along with petitioner's representation and all other relevant documents. Till the decision on the petitioner's representation is taken, order contained in communication No. ADMO/ISM/Sgr/755-56 dated 07.08.2013. (Annexure C to the writ petition) shall remain in abeyance. Disposed of along with connected CMP." 2.3 In compliance with and pursuant to order passed by this Court, respondent No. 2 vide his order issued under endorsement No. DISM/3411-12 dated 12.09.2013 rejected grant of Medical Leave w.e.f. 23.07.2013' observing that the leave applied for by the petitioner is not covered under rules for the reason that petitioner did not comply with the order passed by the Court as he failed to submit fresh representation with all relevant documents. 2.4. Petitioner has assailed his transfer from Unani Dispensary, Ghulab-bagh, Srinagar to Unani Dispensary, Khaned, Udhampur on the ground that the transfer order has been issued by authority not competent to transfer him for the reason that the Director/respondent No. 2 has no power to make inter-divisional transfers. The transfer is also assailed on the ground that the order suffers from mala fides and is violation of the transfer policy followed in the Health Department, notified vide Government order No. 210-HME of 2012 dated 13.03.2012. 3. Transfer of a Government servant holding a transferable post is an exigency of service, which is inherent in terms of his appointment and an essential condition of his service. 3. Transfer of a Government servant holding a transferable post is an exigency of service, which is inherent in terms of his appointment and an essential condition of his service. To order transfer of a Government servant indeed is in the wide discretion of the competent authority and as a general principle, an order of transfer of a Government servant, being an administrative action, ordinarily is not subject to judicial review. But the wide discretion of the competent authority has an implied and inherent covenant that the transfer is made in the public interest and the interest of administration as it is generally professed in the transfer order. There is an ample authority in favour of the view that transfer order of a Government servant can be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court if Court finds that order is mala fide, has been passed by an authority not competent to make it or if service rules prohibit such transfer. 4. In B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1986 SC 1955 Supreme Court has referred to an earlier observation of the Court in E.P. Rayappa v. State of Tamil Nadu Air 1974 SC 555 , which reads: "It is an accepted principle that in public service transfer is an incident of service. It is also an implied condition of service and appointing authority has a wide discretion in the matter. The Government is the best judge to decide how to distribute and utilize the services of its employees. However this power must be exercised honestly, bona fide and reasonably. It should be exercised in public interest. If the excise of power is based on extraneous considerations or for achieving an alien purpose or an oblique motive it would amount to mala fide and colorable exercise of power. Frequent transfers, without sufficient reasons to justify such transfers, cannot but be held as mala fide. A transfer is mala fide when it is made not for professed purpose, such as in normal course or in public or administrative interest or in the exigencies of service but for other purpose than is to accommodate another person for undisclosed reasons. It is the basic principle or rule of law and good administration, that even administrative actions should be just and fair." 5. It is the basic principle or rule of law and good administration, that even administrative actions should be just and fair." 5. Further, their Lordships have observed in para 6 of the reporting: "One cannot but deprecate that frequent, unscheduled and unreasonable transfers can uproot a family, cause irreparable harm to a Government servant and drive him to desperation. It disrupts the education of his children and leads to numerous other complications and problems and results in hardship and demoralization. It therefore follows that the policy of transfer should be reasonable and fair and should apply to everybody equally. But, at the same time, it cannot be forgotten that so far as superior or more responsible posts are concerned, continued posting at one station or in one department of the Government is not conducive to good administration. It creates vested interest and therefore we find that even from the British times the general policy has been to restrict the period of posting for a definite period. We wish to add that the position of Class III and Class IV employees stand on a different footing. We trust that the Government will keep these considerations in view while making an order of transfer." 6. In State of U.P. and others v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402 Supreme Court in para 7 of the reporting has observed: "It is too late in the day for any government servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provisions (an Act or rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision." 7. In Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. (2007) 8 SCC 150 , Supreme Court after referring to some earlier decisions of the Court has reiterated that an order of transfer is a part of the service conditions of an employee, which should not be interfered with ordinarily, by a Court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 unless the Court finds that either the order is mala fide, or that the service rules prohibit such transfer, or that the authority who issued the order, was not competent to pass the orders. 8. Brief submission of Mr. Ward, learned counsel for the petitioner, as regards competence of the Director, respondent No. 2, was that the Director is not competent to make inter-divisional transfer of an employee of ISM Department, much less, that of a gazetted officer as the petitioner is. Dilating his point, Mr. Wani submitted that Director is a Divisional Head of Kashmir Division and is not competent to transfer an employee or officer to or from a place not falling within his Directorate. Transfer of the petitioner from Kashmir Division to Jammu Division by the Director of Kashmir Division is therefore, illegal. Mr. Wani referred to Government Order No. 210-HME of 2012 dated 13.03.2012 (supra) which, besides laying down a policy for transfer, also provides for delegation of powers for making transfers/postings in Health Department. Transfer of the petitioner from Kashmir Division to Jammu Division by the Director of Kashmir Division is therefore, illegal. Mr. Wani referred to Government Order No. 210-HME of 2012 dated 13.03.2012 (supra) which, besides laying down a policy for transfer, also provides for delegation of powers for making transfers/postings in Health Department. Relevant portion of para D of this order is reproduced as: S. No.Class of EmployeesAuthority to whom delegated 4First gazette leved officersHead of the Department within the Division up to the level of Assistant Surgeon/Medical Officer ISM/Assistant Drug controller/Assistant Drug Analyst. 5.Inter-Divisional transfers of first gazette level.Administrative Department concerned with approval of minister Incharge. 9. Respondents in their reply to the writ petition have denied neither the factum of the petitioner being a first gazetted level officer' nor the applicability of the transfer policy, in particular the competence of various authorities to make transfers at various levels. Accordingly, neither it has been disputed nor is it disputable that authority competent to order inter-divisional transfer of a first gazetted level officer is the Administrative Department concerned with approval of Minister Incharge. No way, the Director has the competence to make inter-divisional transfer of a gazetted officer. Even the Administrative Department doesn't have the absolute authority to make such a transfer as, whenever necessitated, the same is to be made with the approval of Minister Incharge. In such a clear delineation of administrative competence laid down by the Government, respondent No. 2 indeed has acted far beyond his competence in transferring the petitioner from Kashmir Division to Jammu Division and in that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and illegal. 10. Respondents, however, have defended the impugned transfer contending that approval of the Minister in the matter has been sought and action stands confirmed by the competent authority. Mr. Kawoosa in the course of his submissions produced copy of communication No. HD/ISM/112/2013 dated 17.09.2013 addressed by Under Secretary to Government, Health and Medical Education Department to the Director (respondent No. 2) conveying the confirmation of the action taken by him in transferring the petitioner by the impugned order. He submitted that confirmation of the order by the Administrative Department tantamounts the grant of requisite approval of the Minister to the inter-divisional transfer of the petitioner. 11. Stand taken by the respondents from its very nature is unsupportable and unacceptable. He submitted that confirmation of the order by the Administrative Department tantamounts the grant of requisite approval of the Minister to the inter-divisional transfer of the petitioner. 11. Stand taken by the respondents from its very nature is unsupportable and unacceptable. As pointed out above, Director, as a matter of fact, has no role in making inter-divisional transfers of first gazetted level officers of the department. He is authorized neither to order such a transfer at his own level nor to do so with the permission or approval of the Minister. Authority to order inter-divisional transfer of a first gazetted level officer lies with the Administrative Department and that too with approval of Minister Incharge. To say otherwise, Administrative Department can order inter-divisional transfer of first gazetted level officer with the approval of the Minister. Such approval, though, may be prior approval or post transfer approval. However, no such order can be made by the Director with or without any approval. In this case the basic transfer order is without jurisdiction and approval of Administrative Department to such an order has no value. 12. Impugned transfer because of its having been made by incompetent and unauthorized person is illegal and cannot sustain. In that, other grounds on which the transfer has been assailed need not be gone into. Nonetheless, circumstances under which the order has been issued cannot be wholly ignored. 13. It is seen that shortly prior to his applying for 'medical leave' on 23.07.2013, the petitioner vide Directorate of ISM Order No. DISM/Yatra/2013/PS/1435-41 dated 18.07.2013 was deployed for Sh. Amarnath Ji Yatra duty. It is contended on behalf of respondents that instead of joining the Yatra duty, the petitioner had sent his application seeking medical leave. The request for medical leave was rejected and rejection was conveyed to him on 07.08.2013 and on the same day the petitioner came to be transferred by the order impugned herein. The order of rejection of leave, however, was challenged by the petitioner in SWP No. 1522/2013. In that writ petition, this Court vide order dated 19.08.2013 had directed reconsideration of the matter on the representation to be made by the petitioner and had alongside kept the rejection order in abeyance. The prayer for medical leave is said to have been again rejected because of petitioner's failure to make the representation as directed by this Court. In that writ petition, this Court vide order dated 19.08.2013 had directed reconsideration of the matter on the representation to be made by the petitioner and had alongside kept the rejection order in abeyance. The prayer for medical leave is said to have been again rejected because of petitioner's failure to make the representation as directed by this Court. Reference to these circumstances is being made in order to keep it open for the competent authority to pass appropriate order as regards transfer and posting of the petitioner in future, notwithstanding that the impugned transfer has been found illegal. 14. For all that said and discussed above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed by issuing writ of certiorari quashing the impugned transfer order to the extent of the transfer of the petitioner from Unani Dispensary Ghulab-bagh, Srinagar to Unani Dispensary, Khaned, Udhampur. It would, however, be open to the competent authority to issue a fresh order in this regard, if so required. Disposed of alongwith connected CMA(s).