JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J.—The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs : “(i) issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30.6.2016 passed by the opposite party No. 2, so far as it relates to transfer of the present petitioner, as contained in Annexure 1 to this writ petition. (ii) issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to continue at the present place of posting. (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature which this Hon’ble High Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner. (iv) cost of the writ petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The petitioner on being transferred on administrative ground from Faizabad, where she was working as Senior Assistant, to Balia, has filed this writ petition alleging that there was no complaint against her work and conduct, therefore, her transfer on administrative ground was absolutely unjustified and illegal. 3. The Court on 3.9.2016 directed the learned standing counsel to seek instructions as to what was the material on the basis of which the petitioner had been transferred on administrative ground whereupon when the matter was taken up on 18.10.2016 the Court was informed that after passing of the order dated 15.9.2016 the Principal Secretary concerned had passed another order on 6.10.2016 attaching the petitioner at Faizabad with the condition that her salary shall be drawn from Bahraich. 4. Taking these facts into consideration, prima facie, it was established that there was no material for petitioner’s transfer on administrative ground as otherwise the order dated 6.10.2016 would not have been passed, therefore, this Court on the insistence of counsel for the petitioner that the matter of the petitioner be probed further posted it for 21.10.2016 directing the learned standing counsel to seek instructions and produce the relevant records relating to transfer of the petitioner as also the four persons referred in the transfer order. The Court was also informed on the said date that two other persons namely, Sri Ramji and Sri Phool Chand who had also been transferred in their cases the transfer order had been cancelled. The Court was also informed on the said date that two other persons namely, Sri Ramji and Sri Phool Chand who had also been transferred in their cases the transfer order had been cancelled. The order dated 18.10.2016 reads as under : “Heard Shri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. This writ petition was filed challenging the order of transfer dated 30.6.2016 by which the petitioner was transferred on administrative ground from Faizabad to Balia alongwith four others. The contention is that the transfer of two other persons one of them on administrative ground namely that of Ram Ji Maurya and Phool Chandra Verma has been cancelled. Moreover, after the passing of the order dated 16.9.2016 by this Court granting time to the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions as to the material against the petitioner which is the basis for her transfer on administrative ground the Principal Secretary is said to have passed another order on 6.10.2016 a copy of which has been placed before the Court by Shri Parihar attaching the petitioner at Faizabad with the condition that her salary shall be drawn from Bahraich. Based on this the contention is that prima facie it establishes that there was no material for the transfer on administrative ground. List/put up on 21.10.2016 to enable the Standing Counsel to seek instructions and produce the relevant records pertaining to the transfer of the petitioner as also that of the four persons and material which is the basis for the same. The petitioner may continue at Faizabad on the basis of the order dated 6.10.2016 referred herein above till the next date of listing.” On 21.10.2016 this Court passed the following order : “Heard learned counsel for the parties. Page 33 of the Annexure 7 to the writ petition is a letter of the Departmental Minister which reads as under: ^^la[;k 0149@ohŒvkbZŒihŒ@ea-fi-o- ,oa fo-t-fo-@2016 fnukad 23-6-2016 funs'kd] fiNMk oxZ dY;k.k Jh lksenso ;kno] dfu"B lgk;d dks futh vuqjks/k ij xkSrecq} uxj ls fctukSj rFkk Jh vuqt dqekj JhokLro] ofj"B lgk;d dks lgkjuiqj ls JkoLrh] Jherh lquhrk oekZ] ofj"B lgk;d dks QStkckn ls cfy;k ,oa Jh jketh ekS;Z] ofj"B lgk;d dks QStkckn ls cqyUn'kgj esa iz'kklfud vk/kkj ij rRdky LFkkukarfjr dj nsaA** Insptie of the order 18.10.2016 the relevant records have not been produced before the Court. Let the same be produced on 26.10.2016. Let the same be produced on 26.10.2016. List/put up on 26.10.2016 as fresh. It is open for the opposite parties to file any affidavit in response to the averments made in the writ petition, if they so choose. Interim order, if any, shall continue till the next date of listing.” 5. Inspite of earlier order dated 18.10.2016 and 21.10.2016 neither any affidavit was filed nor the records were produced. In fact, it appears that the same was not produced on 21.10.2016, therefore, last opportunity was given to the learned standing counsel in this regard posting the matter for 24.11.2016. 6. Ultimately the records were produced on 3.12.2016 and on perusing the records the Court found that almost every person whose transfer is mentioned in the impugned order had approached some political person, either a member of Legislative Assembly or office bearer of a political party, for canvassing his/her case for posting. In these circumstances the Court passed the following order on 13.12.2016 : “Heard. I have perused the original records. The same reveals a very sorry state of affairs. Employees who were transferred or wanted their transfer to a particular place have used political influence and the letters of the MLA’S and Ministers in their support are on record. Let the Principal Secretary, Backward Classes appear before this Court and explain as to whether this is how the transfers are to be made by the Government in the state of Uttar Pradesh or the Rules are to followed? He shall also explain as to whether such letters at the behest of the employees do not constitute mis conduct? If so, instead of taking action why the correct legal position was not brought to the notice of the concerned departmental minister or any other higher authority. The arrangement made by the opposite parties as noticed in the earlier order shall continue till the next date. Put up on 16.12.2016 as first case of the day. Records which are produced today shall also be produced on the next date.” 7. Today the Principal Secretary has appeared before this Court and says that he has joined recently; he assures that he will set things right in his department. Put up on 16.12.2016 as first case of the day. Records which are produced today shall also be produced on the next date.” 7. Today the Principal Secretary has appeared before this Court and says that he has joined recently; he assures that he will set things right in his department. He was asked as to why the Conduct Rules specially Rule 27 of the Rules, 1956 are not being adhered to whereupon he says that he will look into the matter and take suitable action for ensuring that transfers are made as per transfer policy and files relating to transfer are processed in a proper manner with appropriate noting in the light of the transfer policy of the Government and the relevant rules. Even if, any file is to be put up before the Departmental Minister, proper noting apprising him of the correct factual and legal position shall be made and only then it would be placed before him so that the employees may not be encouraged to approach political persons for their service benefits which sets a bad example as regards Discipline and hierarchy of control in the administration etc. However, as this Court finds that such issues are cropping up almost on daily basis while hearing transfer matters, therefore, it is necessary to deal with facts and issues involved herein. 8. Although in a similar matter i.e. W.P. No. 9719 (SS) of 2016 (Radha Mohan Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, 2016(6) ADJ 663 (LB), this Court has already considered the issue but it seems that the judgment in the said case, wherein, the Court directed its copy to be sent to the Chief Secretary as also the Principal Secretary, Home to ensure that in future the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 are complied to the hilt, has not had the desired effect. It was a case where the wife of an employee had directly approached the Chief Minister and from his office a letter was sent to the concerned department and all other officials asking them to facilitate the Constable’s transfer to the desired place. It was a case where the wife of an employee had directly approached the Chief Minister and from his office a letter was sent to the concerned department and all other officials asking them to facilitate the Constable’s transfer to the desired place. The Special Secretary, Home appeared and on being asked as to whether such a representation was entertainable and maintainable in view of the provisions of Rule 27-A of the Conduct Rules, 1956 he referred to certain extracts of manual of Government orders which was noticed and considered as under: “Sri Chauhan placed before the Court an extract of the Manual of Government Orders page No. 79 and placed reliance upon paragraphs 315 and 316(1) thereof, which reads as under: ^^315- turk ls izkIr gksus okyh lHkh ;kfpdkvksa vkSj f'kdk;rh i=ksa ij ;FkklaHko rRijrk rFkk lgk;rk djus dh Hkkouk ls dk;Zokgh dh tkuh pkfg,A ;fn fdUgha ekeyksa esa ;Fkkspr dkj.kksa ls fdlh ;kfpdk esa dh x;h izkFkZuk dks Lohdkj djuk vFkok dfFkr f'kdk;r dks nwj djuk ;k mldk ifj'kks/ku djuk laHko u gks rks f'kdk;rdrkZ dks bldh lwpuk fouez Hkk"kk esa ns nh tk;sA 316¼1½ xSj ljdkjh O;fDr;ksa] laLFkkvksa] laxBuksa rFkk lfefr;ksa ls izkIr gksus okys lHkh i=ksa ds mRrj ns fn;s tk;A** This was relied to support the action of the Under Secretary in sending the letter dated 25.1.2016 to the Dy. Inspector General of Police (Establishment), Police Head Quarters, Allahabad, on receipt of the representation of the petitioner’s wife which was sent directly to the Chief Minister who also happened to the be the Home Minister i.e. the Minister of the Department under which the petitioner is functioning, so as to call for a clear report alongwith recommendation within two days. On being confronted with the provision of Rule 27-A read with explanation to Rule 27 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules 1956 Sri Chauhan could not put forth any reasonable answer as to why such a representation directly submitted to the Chief Minister/Home Minister by the wife of a Government servant was mechanically sent by the State Government to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment) without scrutinizing as to whether such a representation was entertainable and maintainable in the teeth of Rule 27-A read with explanation to Rule 27 of the aforesaid Rules of 1956 which have been made under the proviso under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The reliance placed on extract of the Manual of Government Orders which has been placed before the Court by the Special Secretary is misconceived. A bare perusal of the said provisions discloses that these do not apply in the case at hand where the wife of a Government servant has directly submitted a representation to the Chief Minister/Home Minister in gross violation of the aforesaid Rules of 1956, that too seeking extension of her husband’s deputation in the Trade Tax Department. Paragraph 315 of the Manual of Government Orders refers to petitions and complaints from the public and the requirement to take appropriate actions thereon. This has no application to the facts of the present case. Paragraph 316 refers to letters received from non-Government persons, institutions, organizations, unions and committees. By no stretch of imagination the letter/representation by a wife of a Government servant falls within the purview of paragraph 316. In fact it is hit by Rule 27A read with Rule 27 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. Rule 27A and 27 are quoted hereinbelow: “27-A. No Government servant shall whether personally or through a member of his family, make any representation to Government or any other authority except through the proper channel and in accordance with such direction as the Government may issue from time to time and explanation to Rule 27 shall apply to this Rule. 27. No Government servant shall bring or attempt to bring whether himself, personally or through a member of his family, any political or other outside influence to bear upon any question relating to his interest in respect of matters pertaining to his service. [Explanation.—An act done by the wife or husband, as the case may be, or any member of the family of a Government Servant and falling within the purview of this rule, shall be presumed to have been done at the instance, or with the connivance, of the Government Servant concerned, unless the contrary shall have been proved.]” One can understand this procedure being adopted in matters covered by paragraphs 315 and 316 of the Manual of Government Orders and there can be no two views that such complaints or applications or letters by the public at large or by non-Government persons, institutions etc. may be acted upon promptly through concerned departments of the Government, when the same are received either from the office of the Chief Minister or the Home Minister or any other Minister, however, what is not acceptable is that a representation submitted by a wife of a Government employee directly to the Chief Minister/Home Minister pertaining to a matter relating to his service that too far extension of his deputation should be processed at the level of the Secretariat in the Government in such a manner mechanically asking a report thereon in two days with recommendations thereon, virtually in the teeth of Rule 27-A. Any such processing has to be done keeping in mind the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956, and not bereft thereof, irrespective of the fact that from where such letter has been received, as, the Rules which have been made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India are binding upon the Government. In fact the State Government Secretariat ought to have informed the higher echelons about the prohibitions contained in Rule 27-A or it could have rejected the same in view of the said Rule. The petitioner does not have any indefeasible right to remain in the borrowing department at his will and no such writ for extension of his deputation for five years can be issued. Let this order be placed before the Chief Secretary, U.P., as also the Principal Secretary (Home), U.P., to ensure that in future U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 are complied to the hilt. For the reasons aforesaid this writ petition is dismissed.” 9. In the case at hand the original record has been seen by this Court. There is not a shred of material even remotely suggesting any administrative ground for transfer of the petitioner. 10. Transfer is made on administrative ground when there is some complaint regarding work and conduct of an employee, otherwise, such transfers are normally made in public interest. There is a third category of ‘’transfer on request’ in cases of extreme hardship taking a compassionate view, which is not wholly impermissible, subject to there being sufficient justification for the same. 11. In the present case after being promoted as Senior Assistant the petitioner continued at Faizabad in pursuance to the order dated 4.12.2012. On June 30, 2016 the petitioner was transferred to Ballia on administrative ground. 11. In the present case after being promoted as Senior Assistant the petitioner continued at Faizabad in pursuance to the order dated 4.12.2012. On June 30, 2016 the petitioner was transferred to Ballia on administrative ground. As noticed earlier there is no administrative ground borne out from the record pertaining to her transfer which has been produced before the Court and has been carefully perused. It reveals that on 7.9.2016 the mother-in-law of the petitioner submitted a representation to the Secretary, Backward Class Welfare, Government of U.P. Lucknow narrating therein that she had earlier requested for cancelling her daughter-in-law’s transfer order dated 30.6.2016 vide her letters dated 1.7.2016, 8.7.2016 and 23.7.2016 but these went unheard. Although, her daughter-in-law who was not keeping well and had small children studying at Faizabad was facing great hardship, whereas transfer of another persons working in the same department as Senior Assistant Sri Ramji Maurya, who was transferred on administrative ground from Faizabad, his transfer has been cancelled on 4.8.2016 and he had been posted back at Faizabad. It is also mentioned in the said letter that sri Maurya had come to Backward Class Welfare Department on deputation from his parent department of Social Welfare in the year 1997 but had continued in this department. For the past 18 years he was posted at Faizabad in the office of Backward Class, Faizabad. In pursuance thereto, on 5.10.2016 an order was signed by the then Principal Secretary Sri Manish Kumar Singh attaching the petitioner at Faizabad with the stipulation that her salary would be drawn against the vacant post of Senior Assistant at Bahraich. By the same order another employee namely, Sri Kamal Kishore Agnihotri was attached at Hardoi. This was done on the request of a member of Legislative Assembly from Sandi, Hardoi whose letter is on record which refers to ill health of his mother. This order relating to the pettiioner was passed after filing of this writ petition and passing of the order dated 16.9.2016 therein calling for instructions and records. 12. There is on record, a letter dated 25.5.2016 of Sri Jagjeewan Singh Yadav, Youth Leader of Samajwadi party addressed to Departmental Minister pointing out certain irregularities in the department and also referring to his earlier letter dated 20.5.2016 regarding the conditions prevailing in the concerned department. 13. 12. There is on record, a letter dated 25.5.2016 of Sri Jagjeewan Singh Yadav, Youth Leader of Samajwadi party addressed to Departmental Minister pointing out certain irregularities in the department and also referring to his earlier letter dated 20.5.2016 regarding the conditions prevailing in the concerned department. 13. The other file relating to transfer of Sri Ramji Maurya reveals that there is an order of Departmental Minister dated 23.6.2013 which reads as under: ^^funs'kd] fiNM+k oxZ dY;k.k Jh lksenso ;kno] dfu"V lgk;d dks futh vuqjks/k ij xkSrecq) uxj ls fctuksj rFkk Jh vuqt dqekj JhokLro] ofj"B lgk;d dks lgkjuiqj ls JkoLrh] Jherh lquhrk oekZ] ofj"B lgk;d dks QStkckn ls cfy;k ,oa Jh jketh ekS;kZ] ofj"B lgk;d dks QStkckn ls cqyan'kgj esa Á'kklfud vk/kkj ij rRdky LFkkukarfjr dj nsA viBuh; 23-6-2016 ¼lkgsc flag lSuh½ ea=h fiNM+k oxZ dY;k.k rFkk fodykax tu fodkl foHkkx mŸkj Áns'k** 14. The said order speaks of administrative ground to transfer the persons concerned including the petitioner but it does not disclose the basis thereof nor any complaint etc. There is nothing on record to demonstrate the alleged administrative ground mentioned therein. In pursuance to this the impugned order dated 30.6.2016 was passed transferring Ramji Maurya from Faizabad to Bulandshahr on administrative ground, Smt. Suneeta Verma from Faizabad to Ballia on administrative ground, Sri Phool Chandra from Ballia to Faizabad in public interest, Sri Somdev from Gautambudh Nagar to Bijnore etc. The transfers of these persons have been made on instructions of Departmental Minister as aforesaid. Thereafter the same Departmental Minister on 14.7.2016 passed an order for cancelling the transfer of Sri Ramji Maurya as under: ^^Jh ekS;kZ] ofj"B lgk;d] ds in ij dk;kZy; ftyk fiNM+k oxZ dY;k.k vf/kdkjh] QStkckn ds ;gk¡ dk;Zjr FksA ;gk¡ ls budk LFkkukarj.k tuin cqyan'kgj ds fy, dj fn;k x;k gSA Jh jketh ekS;kZ] ofj"B lgk;d dk tuin QStkckn ls cqyan'kgj esa fd;s x, LFkkukarj.k vkns'k dks fujLr dj] i=koyh esjs lfpo] fiNM+k oxZ dY;k.k foHkkxA viBuh; 14-7-2016 ¼lkgsc flag lSuh½ ea=h fiNM+k oxZ dY;k.k rFkk fodykax tu fodkl foHkkx mŸkj Áns'k** 15. This order also does not indicate as to what was the reason which persuaded the Minister to cancel the transfer of Sri Ramji Maurya who was working in the said office for the last 18 years. This order also does not indicate as to what was the reason which persuaded the Minister to cancel the transfer of Sri Ramji Maurya who was working in the said office for the last 18 years. In pursuance to it the Director, Backward Class Welfare was asked by the State Government to cancel the transfer of Sri Ramji Maurya and inform the Government so that the departmental Minister could be apprised. In pursuance to it the Director, Backward Class Welfare was asked by the State Government to cancel the transfer of Sri Ramji Maurya and inform the Government so that the departmental Minister could be apprised. On 20.7.2016 the Director, Backward Class Welfare informed the State Government in the following terms: ^^Ás"kd] funs'kd] fiNM+k oxZ dY;k.k] m0Á0] y[kuÅ lsok esa] lfpo] mŸkj Áns'k 'kklu] fiNM+k oxZ dY;k.k vuqHkkx&1 i=kad 614@fi0 fo0 Ø0@2016&17] fnukad 20 tqykbZ] 2016 fo"k;&Jh jketh ekS;kZ] ofj"B lgk;d ds in ij dk;kZy; ftyk fiNM+k oxZ dY;k.k vf/kdkjh dk tuin cqyan'kgj fd;k x;k LFkkukarj.k fujLr djus ds lEcU/k esaA egksn;] mi;qDr fo"k; esa Ñi;k 'kklu ds i= la[;k 27 ea0@64@1&2016&18 ¼,u½@2016] fnukad 18 tqykbZ] 2016 dk lUnHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsa] ftlds lkFk ek0 ea=h th fiNMk oxZ dY;k.k rFkk fodykax tu fodkl foHkkx mŸkj Áns'k ds i= fnukad 14-7-2016 dh Áfr layXu djrs gq, ek0 ea=h th }kjk fn, x, vkns'kksa ds Øe esa Jh jketh ekS;kZ] ofj"B lgk;d dk;kZy; ftyk fiNM+k oxZ dY;k.k vf/kdkjh] QStkckn dk tuin cqyan'kgj fd;s x, LFkkukarj.k vkns'k dks fujLr fd;s tkus dk ÁLrko rS;kj djkdj 'kklu dks miyC/k djus dh vis{kk dh xbZ gSA mDr ds Øe esa voxr djuk gS fd ek0 foHkkxh; ea=h th ds dk;kZy; i= la[;k 849@oh0vkbZ0ih0@eka- fi0 oW0 ,oa fo0t~0 fo0@2016] fnukad 23-6-2016 ¼Nk;kÁfr layXu½ }kjk fn, x, funsZ'kksa ds Øe esa funs'kky; ds vkns'k la[;k 521@fi0 oW0 d0@2016&17] fnukad 30-6-2016 ¼Nk;kÁfr layXu½ }kjk Jh jketh ekS;kZ] ofj"B lgk;d dk LFkkukarj.k tuin QStkckn ls tuin cqyan'kgj fd;k x;k gSA funs'kky; ds mDr vkns'k fnukad 30-6-2016 }kjk tuin QStkckn esa rSukr 01 vU; ofj"B lgk;d] Jherh lquhrk oekZ dk LFkkukarj.k tuin cfy;k rFkk tuin cfy;k esa rSukr ofj"B lgk;d Jh Qwypan oekZ dk LFkkukarj.k tuin QStkckn fd;k x;kA ;gka ;g Hkh voxr djuk gS fd tuin QStkckn esa ofj"B lgk;d dk 01 gh in l`ftr gS] vr% Jh jketh ekS;kZ ds tuin cqyan'kgj fd;s x, LFkkukarj.k dks fujLr fd;s tkus ds fLFkfr esa Qwypan oekZ] ofj"B lgk;d ds LFkkukarj.k ds lEcU/k es fopkj fd;s tkus ds fLFkfr esa Jh Qwypan oekZ] ofj"B lgk;d ds LFkkukarj.k ds lEcU/k esa Hkh fopkj fd;k tkuk gksxkA Ñi;k mijksDr fLFkfr ls voxr gksrs gq, Jh jketh ekS;kZ] ofj"B lgk;d ds tuin cqyan'kgj fd;s x, LFkkukarj.k dks 'kklu Lrj ls fujLr fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa ;Fkksfpr dkjokgh djus dk d"V djsaA layXud&;FkksDr Hkonh; viBuh; ¼lqjs'k panz frokjh½ funs'kd** 16. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner in September 2016 and as stated earlier on 5.10.2016 the petitioner herein was attached at Faizabad, though, her salary was drawn from Bahraich. There are various other documents on record relating to other employees where transfer and posting has been ordered on the request of political persons and departmental Minister details of which are not relevant herein. 17. The fact of the matter is that Sri Ramji Maurya’s transfer was cancelled, Sri Phool Chandra’s transfer was also cancelled. The petitioner was attached at Faizabad after filing of writ petition in the circumstances stated above. After passing of the impugned order, it appears that petitioner’s mother-in-law, when she failed to get any response from departmental authorities, also approached a political person Sri Abhay Singh member of Legislative Assembly whose letter dated 12.8.2016 is also on record which was sent prior to filing of this writ petition and was given after cancellation of transfer of Sri Ramji Maurya, but, without considering the earlier request of petitioner’s mother-in-law in this regard as already noticed hereinabove. 18. It is true that public representatives are not precluded from informing the Government authorities about the functioning of a Government servant. It is also not prohibited in law to look into such complaints and if found necessary to transfer a Government servant whose presence in a particular office is not conducive to work culture therein, but, what is not permissible is, to act mechanically on such requests of political persons. The record shows that the transfers and postings are being made and cancelled in the Department on mere asking and at the behest of political persons. Even a departmental Minister cannot order a transfer and posting without there being any justification for the same, especially, in individual cases when transfer season has already ended. 19. The State Government has formulated a transfer policy which is on record, of what use is it, if, the concerned authority and the Departmental Minister do not adhere to it. Inspite of such transfer policy and inspite of Conduct Rules, if the employee approaches a political person or for that matter even a departmental Minister directly, which is also impermissible, it shows a lack of confidence in the Government functionaries and the Rule of law. Inspite of such transfer policy and inspite of Conduct Rules, if the employee approaches a political person or for that matter even a departmental Minister directly, which is also impermissible, it shows a lack of confidence in the Government functionaries and the Rule of law. One can understand, in exceptional cases of extreme hardship where compassion is required to be shown, but, even in these cases the request is to be made through proper channel and not directly to the Departmental Minister, as was done in the present case. 20. In the present case the process of cancelling the transfer of Sri Ramji Maurya was initiaed on the directions of Departmental Minister on 14.7.2016 but there is nothing on record to show as to what was the catalyst for this action. Obviously the concerned official either met the Minister directly or exercised influence from some other quarter, as, there was no proposal for such cancellation from the lower rungs. There is a process of taking decision in the Government which applies even in a case of transfer. Unless the Departmental Minister has some information or material before him requiring immediate action in the interest of administration, the files are normally routed to him with the noting of the intermediary officers narrating the factual position and the provision in the rules. Nothing of this kind happened in the present case. None of the officers gathered enough courage to place the correct factual position as also the provisions of the Conduct Rules, which prohibit the exercise of such influence, as in this case, by an employee (Rule 27 of the Conduct Rules). Every-body caved-in to the desire of the Departmental Minister as and when it was expressed, regarding transfer or cancellation of the same of concerned personnel. This is not how transfers are to be made in the Government. Mere wish of the Departmental Minister unsupported by any administrative exigency or public interest or analogous grounds, cannot be allowed to determine the transfer of employees in a system, governed by rule of law and not whims of individuals. 21. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order of transfer in so far as it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall continue at her place of posting and be paid her salary for the period she has worked. 21. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order of transfer in so far as it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall continue at her place of posting and be paid her salary for the period she has worked. The Principal Secretary, Backward Welfare Department is directed to ensure that in future transfers are made in accordance with the transfer policy of the Government. If there is any exceptional case requiring compassionate consideration then proper noting demonstrating justification for such compassion should be forwarded for decision at the appropriate level. No request from any political person un-related to the department should be entertained mechanically for transfer and posting. If any complaint is received regarding any Government servant it should be first inquired into or if sufficient material has been annexed requiring his immediate shifting then a decision should be taken as aforesaid, otherwise, the matter relating to transfer should be considered after a fact finding report has been received. Even where a request is made by the Departmental Minister, he should be apprised of the correct factual and legal position to facilitate appropriate decision at his level in public interest and in the interest of administration keeping in mind the supervening interest referred hereinabove. Mere desire to transfer a person or cancel his transfer, bereft of any justification or material, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, even if, it is expressed by the Departmental Minister. It is for the subordinate officers to apprise the Departmental Minister about the correct factual and legal position in this regard. 22. It is made clear that in the normal season of transfer if the petitioner is required to be transferred in public interest or there are other good reasons, it shall be open to the State Government to transfer her but in bona fide exercise of power, keeping in mind the transfer policy. 23. The Principal Secretary, shall look into all such matters in the light of this judgment and take remedial action, if, not already taken, as has been assured by him before this Court. 24. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.