JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner in the present petition challenges .the Govt. Order No. 1091-GAD of 2014, dated 21.10.2014 whereby the petitioner, who was working as Director, Industries and Commerce, Jammu has been transferred and posted as Project Director, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. 2. The order impugned is questioned on the ground of malafides as also on the ground that the same was premature and without jurisdiction in terms of Govt. Order No. 861-GAD of 2010, dated 28.7.2010. On malafides 3. It was urged that the petitioner has been posted as Director, Industries and Commerce vide Govt. Order dated 16.7.2014 pursuant to a decision taken by a Cabinet bearing No. 131/11/2014. However, immediately after assuming the charge, respondent No. 3, who was the minister of State for Industries and Commerce, started pressurizing the petitioner for immediately calling the Divisional Level Single Window Clearance Committee meeting for clearing the cases of M/s Shivam Metal Shaper Industries Works and M/s Adhishree Cold Storage in whose favour the Managing Director, J&K Small Industries Development Corporation (SIDCO) had earmarked a plot of land measuring 17 kanals each at Bari Brahmana, Jammu. 4. It was further stated that another case was that of M/s Chenab Engineering and Fabrication, Industrial Estate, Birpur SICOP in which the Public Relation Officer of respondent No. 3 had a personal interest and in whose favour the Managing Director SICOP had earmarked the land subject to cancellation of plot, which was without proper location, plot number, sketch, and site plan and was not otherwise covered under the rules. 5. It was stated that in order to pressurize the petitioner, veiled threats were advanced at the behest of respondent No. 3 that he would be transferred from his assignments. 6. Reference was also made to a complaint filed by one Kamal Kumar of M/s S.K. Industrial Technical Consultancy addressed to the Chief Minister, highlighting the factum of illegal allotment of premium land at Bari Brahmana in favour of certain industrialists against the Industrial policy. 7. It was stated that the petitioner on examination of the cases aforementioned came to know that the recommendations made in favour of M/s Shivam Metal Shaper Industries Works and M/s Adhishree Cold Storage was against the State Government's Industrial Policy of 2004 as there were as many as 34 cases, which were pending since 2009 prior to those of the above. It is also stated that land had to be allotted only on first come first serve basis. 8. Finally, it was urged that in a Divisional Level Committee meeting, the cases of the aforementioned industrialists were rejected, which infuriated respondent No. 3, who in fact, prevailed upon the Chief Minister by having him pre-maturely transferred as Director, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. Response of respondent No. 3 to allegations of Malafides. 9. Reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 wherein it is stated that the Minister of State for Industries and Commerce had no role to play in the allotment of land to the prospective entrepreneurs and that the cases for allotment of land were disposed of by the designated Single Window Clearance Committee at the Divisional level under the chairmanship of Director, Industries and Commerce and by the Apex Project Clearance Committee under the chairmanship of Chief Secretary at the State level depending upon the category of the projects, 10. Allegations of threat, pressure or coercion on the petitioner to favour the industrialists, named in the petition, have specifically been denied. In regard to the complaint filed by Kamal Kumar of M/s S. K. Industrial Technical Consultancy, Jammu, it is stated that the said complaint was a forged one inasmuch M/s S.K. Industrial Technical Consultant vide their letter dated 16th of Sept., 2013 had denied having lodged any such complaint and had also denied the existence of any individual by the name of Kamal Kumar in their organization. 11. It was stated that the said letter was forged one only with a view to sensationalize the matter. Reference was also made to a letter dated 2nd of Oct., 2014 addressed by the petitioner to the Editor in Chief to a newspaper clarifying specifically that the name of the Hon'ble Chief Minister i.e., respondent No. 3 had unnecessarily been dragged into the controversy and that he had no role to play in the land allotment to the prospective entrepreneurs. What was clarified in the letter dated 2nd of October, 2014 is reproduced hereunder: It is reference to News item captioned "MOS Industries pitched case of a big Business house...." carried in your edition dated 02.10.2014 it is regretted that the name of Hon'ble Minister has unnecessarily been dragged into this controversy as he has no role to play in the land allotment to prospective entrepreneurs. In reference to the said news item it is clarified that the cases for allotment of land are disposed off by the designated Single Window Clearance Committee at the division level, under the Chairmanship of Director Industries and Commerce and by the Apex Project Clearance Committee under the chairmanship of Chief Secretary at the State level depending upon the category of the projects. The cases are approved, deferred and rejected on merits by the designated committees. You are as such requested to publish this in the next edition of your daily prominently to bring the truth before the public in general and the young; budding entrepreneurs in particular whose interests are very close to his heart." 12. All allegations of malafides have, in fact come down crumbling as a house of cards, on the basis of this clarificatory letter addressed by the petitioner himself in support of respondent No. 3. No rejoinder has been filed disowning the authenticity of this letter by the petitioner. Even otherwise, it appears that the petitioner was not the only person, who was responsible for taking such a decision with regard to allotment of land in favour of industrialists, which decision was a collective decision to be taken by a committee at the divisional level in some cases and at the State level in others. 13. Admittedly, the order of transfer has been passed under orders of the Chief Minister and not by respondent No. 3. The allegations of respondent No. 3 prevailing upon the Chief Minister to settle scores with the petitioner has no material basis and nothing is on record to suggest that the Chief Minister had not acted on his own and that he had acted only at the behest of respondent No. 3. Even otherwise, it is difficult to reconcile and accept the allegations of malafides, which have been specifically rebutted on affidavit read with clarificatory letter dated 2nd of October, 2014 issued by the petitioner himself. The petitioner cannot be permitted to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. 14. In view of the above, the argument that the order impugned was passed as a matter of malafide exercise of powers is without any basis and is accordingly rejected. Affect of Govt. Order No. 861-GAD of 2010 dated 27.10.2010, prescribing guidelines in matters of transfer. 15. 14. In view of the above, the argument that the order impugned was passed as a matter of malafide exercise of powers is without any basis and is accordingly rejected. Affect of Govt. Order No. 861-GAD of 2010 dated 27.10.2010, prescribing guidelines in matters of transfer. 15. The second ground urged by the counsel for the petitioner was that the order of transfer was premature inasmuch it was passed within three months from his posting as Director, Industries and Commerce. The said pre-mature transfer, it was stated, offended the Govt. Order No. 861-GAD of 2010, which specifically prescribed a minimum tenure of two years to a Govt. employee and prescribed further that a premature transfer could be effected only with the prior approval of the minister incharge after recording reasons for the same. 16. It was urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Chief Minister was not at all competent to order the transfer of the petitioner inasmuch as the decision, if any, could be taken by the Cabinet. Reference was made yet again to Govt. Order No. 861-GAD of 2010 to urge that according to clause (d) of the said order while delegating powers for making transfers and postings in regard to Secretaries to Govt. and above, Divisional Commissioners, IGPs, DIGs and Heads of the Departments etc, only the Cabinet was competent as prescribed. However, the Chief Minister could order the transfer and postings of Dy. Commissioners, SSPs as and when an emergency whereafter, the matter was required to be brought to the Cabinet for of the action taken. 17. It was further urged that assuming transfer was an exigency of service, yet since in the present case, the Chief Minister lacked the jurisdiction and competence to pass the order, which power lay exclusively with the Cabinet, the court could interfere and quash the order impugned on that ground. 18. This court has already held that the minimum tenure of two years prescribed by Govt. Order No. 861-GAD of 2010 was in the nature of executive instructions and was not enforceable. This view has been taken by this court in Ghulam Nabi Shah v. State of J&K & ors, SWP No. 1336/2013. 19. Following the said view, it is held that the mere fact that the petitioner is transferred pre-maturely alone does not give a cause of action to the petitioner to challenge the same. 20. This view has been taken by this court in Ghulam Nabi Shah v. State of J&K & ors, SWP No. 1336/2013. 19. Following the said view, it is held that the mere fact that the petitioner is transferred pre-maturely alone does not give a cause of action to the petitioner to challenge the same. 20. Another ground urged was that Govt. Order No. 861-GAD of 2010 and. in particular, Schedule VIII of Clause (d) be read as part of Rule 27 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, which provides for as under: "27. Posting and transfers.- (1) A member of a service or class of a service may be required to serve in any part of the Jammu and Kashmir State in any post borne on the cadre of such service or class. (a) All transfers and postings shall be made by the authority prescribed by Government in this behalf." 21. In reference to Rule 27, it was urged that the Govt. by issuing Govt. Order No. 861-GAD of 2010 must be deemed to have exercised its power and prescribed the authority as lying exclusively in that of the Cabinet and not in that of the Chief Minister. 22. The argument that Govt. Order No. 861-GAD of 2010, dated 28.7.2010 clause (d) should be treated to be a part of Rule 27(a) of the of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 cannot succeed for the reason that this court has already held the said order to be in the nature of an executive instruction. 23. A similar view has been taken by a coordinate bench of this Court in Ab. Hamid Rather v. State of J&K & Ors, 2011(2) JKJ 695 [HC]. 24. It may be emphasized that only those administrative orders are justiciable, which are framed in aid of a rule governing the conditions of service of an employee. Such administrative orders or instructions supplement the rules if they are not otherwise contrary to or inconsistent with the spirit of the rule. 25. 24. It may be emphasized that only those administrative orders are justiciable, which are framed in aid of a rule governing the conditions of service of an employee. Such administrative orders or instructions supplement the rules if they are not otherwise contrary to or inconsistent with the spirit of the rule. 25. Reference in this regard can be made to Union of India v. K.P. Joseph & ors, (1973) 1 SCC 194 where the Apex Court held as under- " ...if the rules framed under Art. 309 of the Constitution are silent on any particular point, the Government can fill up gaps; and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed and these instructions will govern the conditions of service. 26. Objections have been filed wherein a stand has been taken that the Chief Minister could have issued the order of transfer in regard to the petitioner in terms of the powers vested in him under Rule 14(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir, Govt. Business Rules, which is reproduced as under: "14(2). In respect of the below mentioned cases falling under the Second Schedule, the Secretary in the Administration Department concerned shall, with the approval of the Minister Incharge, make a submission to the Chief Minister through the Secretary to Cabinet, obtain orders and subsequently submit a note for information of the Cabinet- (a) emergent cases where it is not possible to seek orders of the Cabinet as required under these rules and there is an urgent need to anticipate the same in the interests of the administration; (b) cases which involve minor amendments to decisions already taken by the Cabinet; (c) cases of confidential nature, the circulation of which as part of the agenda may not be in the interest of administration." 27. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that none of the conditions prescribed under Rule 14(2) i.e., (a), (b) and (c) were existing, which warranted the exercise of such a power by the Chief Minister. It was also sought to be highlighted that the only power in terms of the Govt. Business Rules (supra), which existed with the Chief Minister was the power to transfer and post Deputy Commissioners, SSPs etc as mentioned in the second schedule only in case of an emergency whereafter the decision had to be brought before the Cabinet for confirmation of the action taken. 28. Business Rules (supra), which existed with the Chief Minister was the power to transfer and post Deputy Commissioners, SSPs etc as mentioned in the second schedule only in case of an emergency whereafter the decision had to be brought before the Cabinet for confirmation of the action taken. 28. On a perusal of the provisions of the Govt. Business Rules, it becomes clear that Rule 14(2) does authorize the Chief Minister in cases reflected in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) and clause 2 of Rule 14 to take a decision and to have the same subsequently brought for information of the Cabinet. 29. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy this court as to how the interest of administration would not be served with the transfer of the petitioner by virtue of the order impugned. In any case, this court cannot go into this issue at all in these proceedings. 30. The views of the Apex Court in regards to rights of an employee to question the order of transfer can briefly be noticed with reference to the following judgments. 31. In State of U.P. and another v. Siya Ram and another, (2004) 7 SCC 405 , the Apex Court has held as under- "..........No government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. This position was highlighted by this court in National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd v. Shri Bhagwan, (2001) 8 SCC 574 ." 32. This position was highlighted by this court in National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd v. Shri Bhagwan, (2001) 8 SCC 574 ." 32. In the case of Union of India and others v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357 , the Apex Court while dealing with the guidelines framed by the Government of India regarding couple transfers held that the guidelines/administrative instructions do not create any enforceable right in the employees. The said guidelines are in the nature of instructions and do not have any statutory force. 33. In Rajendra Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors, (2009) 15 SCC 178 , the Apex Court, yet again, reiterated the aforementioned principles and in paragraph 9 of the judgment, held as under- "9. The courts are always reluctant in interfering with the transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of some statutory provisions or suffers from mala fides. In Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, this court held: "4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of malafide. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders." 34. In Shanti Kumari v. Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Patna Division, Patna & Ors, (1981) 2 SCC 72 , the Apex Court has held as under- "2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court rightly declined to interfere with the impugned order. Transfer of a Government servant may be due to exigencies of service or due to administrative reasons. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court rightly declined to interfere with the impugned order. Transfer of a Government servant may be due to exigencies of service or due to administrative reasons. The courts cannot interfere in such matters. Shri Grover, learned counsel for the appellant, however, contends that the impugned order was in breach of the Government instructions with regard to transfers in the Health Department. If that be so, the authorities will look into the matter and redress the grievance of the appellant." 35. Having considered the entire issue, the petition is found to be without merit and is accordingly dismissed. 35. Connected CMA also stands disposed of accordingly. Petition dismissed