JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 31/8/2020 (Annex. 6 in C.W. No. 8199/2020), whereby, the posting order of the petitioner as Commissioner, Municipal Council, Bhilwara has been cancelled and he has been ordered to remain Awaiting Posting Order (A.P.O.) and order dated 16/9/2020 (Annex. 9 in C.W. No. 9572/2020), whereby, the petitioner has been transferred/posted from Municipal Council, Bhilwara to Municipal Board, Laxmangarh (Alwar). 2. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Executive Officer - IV. By order dated 4/6/2019 while working on the post of Executive Officer - II at Municipal Board, Ringus, District Jaipur, the petitioner was placed A.P.O.; on 4/9/2019 the petitioner was accorded posting at Municipal Council, Jhunjhunu; on 19/2/2019 the petitioner was again placed A.P.O. and was directed to mark his presence at Local Self Department, Jaipur. 3. Vide order dated 21/8/2020, the petitioner was accorded posting as Commissioner, Municipal Council, Bhilwara; it was indicated in the order that as the post of Commissioner at Municipal Council, Bhilwara was getting vacant w.e.f. 31/8/2020 on account of superannuation of the incumbent Commissioner, therefore, the order dated 21/8/2020 shall come into force w.e.f. 1/9/2020. 4. On 31/8/2020, another order was passed, whereby, the order dated 21/8/2020, whereby, the petitioner was accorded posting as Commissioner, Municipal Council, Bhilwara was cancelled; the petitioner was ordered to remain A.P.O. and one Smt. Durga Kumari - respondent was accorded posting as Commissioner, Municipal Council, Bhilwara. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed S.B.C.W.P. No. 8199/2020 questioning the validity of order dated 31/8/2020. By order dated 3/9/2020, a co-ordinate bench of this Court, stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 31/8/2020. 6. A reply to the writ petition was filed by Smt. Durga Kumari -the private respondent along with an application seeking vacation of the interim order under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India. 7. While the writ petition no. 8199/2020 was pending, an order dated 16/9/2020 was passed by the respondent State, whereby, the petitioner was transferred/posted from Municipal Council, Bhilwara to Municipal Board, Laxmangarh (Alwar) and Smt. Durga Kumari was posted as Commissioner, Municipal Council, Bhilwara. 8. Passing of the order dated 16/9/2020 led to filing of writ petition No. 9572/2020. 7. While the writ petition no. 8199/2020 was pending, an order dated 16/9/2020 was passed by the respondent State, whereby, the petitioner was transferred/posted from Municipal Council, Bhilwara to Municipal Board, Laxmangarh (Alwar) and Smt. Durga Kumari was posted as Commissioner, Municipal Council, Bhilwara. 8. Passing of the order dated 16/9/2020 led to filing of writ petition No. 9572/2020. The order dated 16/9/2020 was questioned inter alia on the grounds that the same was arbitrary, unreasonable, unjustified, the same was not passed in any administrative exigency or public interest, the same was passed only on account of political considerations and to accommodate Smt. Durga Kumari, the same was passed to bypass the interim order dated 3/9/2020 passed in C.W. No. 8199/2020, the same was in violation of various pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court requiring a minimum tenure for a public servant and that passing of the frequent orders transferring the petitioner and/or placing him A.P.O. have led to unnecessary harassment of the petitioner. 9. The State represented by Addl. Advocate General and the private respondent appeared on caveat. Replies to the writ petition have been filed disputing the averments made in the writ petition. It is inter alia contended by the State that the petitioner was transferred to Municipal Board, Laxmangarh on purely administrative reasons as the said Board is a newly constituted Board, which came into existence in June, 2020 and, therefore, to use the long experience of the petitioner, he was posted at Laxmangarh. Qua the posting of Smt. Durga Kumari, it was indicated that as her husband, a Govt. servant, is posted at Bhilwara, on an application by her, due to difficult time of COVID-19 pandemic, to look after her children, in-laws, she was posted at Bhilwara. It was prayed that the writ petitions be dismissed. 10. Reply was also filed on behalf of the private respondent Smt. Durga Kumari inter alia raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the writ petition on various counts and justifying the order of her posting at Bhilwara. Further, an additional affidavit was also presented by her inter alia claiming that as her father-in-law is suffering from lung cancer and is stationed at Bhilwara, her presence at Bhilwara was necessary. It was prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 11. During the pendency of the writ petition, by order dated 28/9/2020, learned Addl. Further, an additional affidavit was also presented by her inter alia claiming that as her father-in-law is suffering from lung cancer and is stationed at Bhilwara, her presence at Bhilwara was necessary. It was prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 11. During the pendency of the writ petition, by order dated 28/9/2020, learned Addl. Advocate General was directed to produce the record/note sheets, which led to passing of the orders dated 21/8/2020, 27/8/2020, 31/8/2020 and 16/9/2020. The required additional affidavit dated 5/10/2020 has been filed along with the record/note sheets. 12. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the material produced along with the additional affidavit that the entire action of the respondents in transferring the petitioner, placing him A.P.O., according posting at Laxmangarh is outcome of political interference, which is established from the note sheets inasmuch as the respondent - Smt. Durga Kumari has been accorded posting in place of the petitioner at the recommendation of an M.L.A., which recommendation has been approved by the concerned Minister. It was submitted that the note sheets clearly indicate that on 24/8/2020, the M.L.A. made recommendation to the Minister, who on the same day directed issuance of the order, pursuant thereto first she was placed A.P.O. on 27/8/2020 and then on 31/8/2020 the impugned order canceling the petitioner's posting at Bhilwara, which was to be effective w.e.f. 1/9/2020, was passed and she was accorded posting. Submissions made in the reply to the writ petition regarding existence of administrative exigency, on its face, is negated by the material available on record and, therefore, in absence of any administrative exigency and orders having been passed based on political dictates, the orders impugned deserve to be set aside. 13. Submissions were made that the orders for transfer etc. have to initiate from lower level upwards, whereas, in the present case the same has apparently flown from Minister downwards, which is ex-facie contrary to the Rules of Business and on that count also the same cannot be sustained. 14. Reliance has been placed on order dated 6/2/2018 passed in Malchand Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12594/2017. 15. Learned Addl. Advocate General defended the action of the respondents in passing the orders impugned. It was submitted that though the orders for transfer etc. 14. Reliance has been placed on order dated 6/2/2018 passed in Malchand Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12594/2017. 15. Learned Addl. Advocate General defended the action of the respondents in passing the orders impugned. It was submitted that though the orders for transfer etc. may have been initiated by way of recommendations made by the MLAs and on directions of the concerned Minister, however, the same have been passed after looking into the administrative exigency and, therefore, it cannot be said that merely on account of the fact that recommendations were made by the MLAs, the orders passed are vitiated. 16. Further submissions were made that the petitioner's own posting at Bhilwara by order dated 21/8/2020 was also an outcome of recommendation made by an M.L.A. and directions issued by the concerned Minister and, therefore, the petitioner is estopped from questioning the validity of the order passed in a similar manner qua Smt. Durga Kumari. 17. It was further submitted that from the material available on record it is apparent that the husband of Smt. Durga Kumari is posted at Bhilwara and it is the policy of the State to post the couples in Government service, as far as possible, at the same place. It was prayed that the writ petitions be dismissed. 18. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent Smt. Durga Kumari vehemently supported her posting orders at Bhilwara. It was submitted that on account of her family circumstances, she had made an application to the Department for posting her at Bhilwara, where her husband was serving and her in-laws are staying, for the purpose of taking due care of her family in the difficult times of COVID-19, the same was favourably considered and order was passed, which cannot be faulted. 19. Further submissions were made that on account of conduct of the petitioner, where his own transfer to Bhilwara from a future date, was an outcome of similar recommendation, he cannot be heard to question the validity of a similar exercise. It was contended that merely because a recommendation has been made for transfer by a public representative, the same by itself cannot vitiate the order of transfer. It was prayed that the writ petitions be dismissed. 20. Reliance has been placed on Mohd. Masood Ahmad vs. State of U.P & Ors. It was contended that merely because a recommendation has been made for transfer by a public representative, the same by itself cannot vitiate the order of transfer. It was prayed that the writ petitions be dismissed. 20. Reliance has been placed on Mohd. Masood Ahmad vs. State of U.P & Ors. : (2007) 8 SCC 150 , Hari Mohan Dubey vs. State of Rajasthan : 1989 (1) RLR 36 , Bhagirath Mal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 1990 (2) RLR 561 and Bhanwar Lal Jhakad vs. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19025/2013 decided on 24/10/2013 at Jaipur Bench. 21. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 22. At the outset, it may be observed that during the course of submissions, this Court after going through the material placed by learned AAG along with the additional affidavit dated 5/10/2020, wherein, almost all the orders in the present case were passed based on the recommendations made by one M.L.A. or the other and the concerned Minister simply indicating 'please issue orders' on the same recommendation, put a query questioning the manner and procedure adopted for effecting transfers, to which it was submitted that 'the same was the normal procedure'. 23. This Court in the case of Malchand Sharma (supra) while dealing with a matter of the same Department had inter alia observed as under: "When the learned Addl. Advocate General was asked as to how the orders for giving charge are flowing from the Minister's end downwards, it was submitted, with reference to large number of note-sheets produced alongwith the relevant record by learned Addl. Advocate General for perusal, that each and every order of transfer/posting be it of Executive Officer, Tax Assessor, Accountant, Revenue Inspector, Assistant Fire Officer, Fireman, LDC, Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer and/or any other post, all such orders flow from Minister's end only and are followed by Principal Secretary, Director etc. This Court in Chander Kanta vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. This Court in Chander Kanta vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11022/2015 decided on 24/11/2015 noticed a similar situation pertaining to transfers of Gram Sevak from one Panchayat Samiti to another and after referring to the Government's Rules of Business, it was inter alia observed as under: "Admittedly, the post of Gram Sevak falls within the Non-Gazetted Staff and, therefore, even otherwise there was no requirement of even placing the said aspect before the Minister as claimed by the respondents. Besides the above even if the same was to be placed before the Minister, the hierarchy as indicated hereinbefore cannot be made to work from top downwards i.e. from Minister to the Secretary to the Additional Commissioner which would be against the established practise and wholly contrary to the settled position wherein the approval etc. is to be granted by a higher officer and in the present case on passing of the order by the Minister, the Secretary and the Additional Commissioner are merely required to follow the same, which cannot be the procedure. In view of the above, the order/proposal Annex. R-2 can only be said to be wholly without jurisdiction, the said proposal cannot partake the character of order of the Government and consequently passing of the order Annex. P-7 by the respondents transferring the petitioner from one Panchayat Samiti to other also cannot be sustained." (emphasis supplied) 24. The fact situation in the present case, as noticed hereinbefore, is not different from the situation in the case of Chander Kanta (supra). 25. Learned Addl. Advocate General on further questioning about the procedure adopted with reference to note-sheets, as referred above, submitted that only the said procedure is being adopted and sought time to make further submissions in this regard." 26. The order was passed way back on 6/2/2018. Apparently, despite passage of over 2½ years, the state of affairs, despite observations made by the Court, have not improved, rather the same appears to be the practice, which apparently is contrary to the Rules of Business. 27. The documents presented indicate that on 18/2/2020 the M.L.A. from Mandava, Jhunjhunu addressed a letter to the concerned Minister complaining against the petitioner and requesting that one Mr. 27. The documents presented indicate that on 18/2/2020 the M.L.A. from Mandava, Jhunjhunu addressed a letter to the concerned Minister complaining against the petitioner and requesting that one Mr. Rohit Kumar Meel, who was A.P.O., be posted, on which recommendation, the concerned Minister indicated 'Please issue orders for A.P.O. to Shri Devi Lal and post Shri Rohit Kumar Meel in his place', based on which the order dated 19/2/2020 was issued by the Director placing the petitioner A.P.O. and posting Mr. Rohit Kumar Meel in his place. 28. On 19/8/2020, the M.L.A. from Sahada-Raipur-Suwana area (District Bhilwara) made recommendation to the concerned Minister requiring posting of petitioner from A.P.O. to Commissioner, Municipal Council, Bhilwara and also indicated that he may be posted against the post to be vacated on 31/8/2020. On the said recommendation, the concerned Minister on 21/8/2020 indicated 'Please issue order'. Based on which, on 21/8/2020 itself the order as indicated hereinbefore posting the petitioner as Commissioner, Municipal Council, Bhilwara w.e.f. 1/9/2020 was passed by the Director. 29. Before the order dated 21/8/2020 could come into force, the M.L.A. from Mandal (Bhilwara) made a recommendation on 24/8/2020 recommending transfer of Smt. Durga Kumari from Municipal Council, Chittorgarh to Municipal Council, Bhilwara in place of the petitioner with a note that her husband is APP and is presently posted at Bhilwara. On the said letter, on 24/8/2020 itself the concerned Minister indicated 'Please issue order', apparently oblivious of the fact that on his direction dated 21/8/2020 already an order with regard to posting at Bhilwara had been issued. Whereafter, to implement the direction issued by the concerned Minister dated 24/8/2020, first the respondent Smt. Durga Kumari was ordered to be placed A.P.O. on 27/8/2020 and whereafter, the order dated 31/8/2020 was issued, cancelling the order dated 21/8/2020 and keeping the petitioner A.P.O. and posting Smt. Durga Kumari at Bhilwara. 30. Whereafter, on 2/9/2020, the M.L.A. from Rajgarh - Laxmangarh (Alwar) requested the concerned Minister for filling up vacant posts at Municipal Board, Laxmangarh, on which letter again the Minister indicated 'Please post to fill up vacancy', which lead to passing of the order dated 16/9/2020 posting the petitioner at Laxmangarh. Prior to passing of the order, it was opined by the Administrative Officer that despite grant of interim order by this Court against placing the petitioner A.P.O. by order dated 31/8/2020, the order of transfer/posting can be made. 31. Prior to passing of the order, it was opined by the Administrative Officer that despite grant of interim order by this Court against placing the petitioner A.P.O. by order dated 31/8/2020, the order of transfer/posting can be made. 31. Though moral high ground was attempted to be taken by the State by claiming that it is the policy of the State, as far as possible, to keep husband and wife at one place. However, the note sheets produced do not indicate any such consideration while posting Smt. Durga Kumari at Bhilwara. The only consideration indicated is i.e. recommendation of the M.L.A. & direction of the Minister. The reply filed is, therefore, de hors the record. 32. The procedure adopted for effecting transfers and the manner in which the State machinery is proceeding cannot be countenanced under any circumstance. 33. Though heavy reliance has been placed on the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad (supra) that transfer on the recommendation of an M.L.A. by itself would not vitiate the order of transfer as it is the duty of representatives of the people to express the grievance of the people and that it depends on the facts and circumstances of an individual case. However, this Court is of the firm opinion that the transfer orders must ultimately be issued by the Administrative Head after application of mind, that too after subjective satisfaction, without being influenced by the recommendations so made by the elected representatives. 34. Even on the recommendation made by the M.L.A., who indeed as an elected representative of the people, can raise issues pertaining to the working and/or vacancies at particular places, the ultimate passing of the order by the administrative department must reflect subjective satisfaction and conscious application of mind that the transfer is essentially on account of administrative exigency and/or public interest or that the transfer of an employee is necessary for effective utilization of his services. The contextual facts must not demonstrate that the administrative authority has acted at the dictate of an outside entity by abdicating his powers, which would result in the order or decision being contrary to the basic principle of governmental functioning. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. The contextual facts must not demonstrate that the administrative authority has acted at the dictate of an outside entity by abdicating his powers, which would result in the order or decision being contrary to the basic principle of governmental functioning. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad (supra) and Division Bench of this Court in Bhagirath Mal (supra) holding that a transfer made at the recommendation of an M.L.A. by itself would not vitiate such transfer cannot be read/utilized by the respondent - State as providing for another course of effecting transfers. The same can only be by way of an exception and not as a 'new normal' as sought to be submitted by learned AAG. 35. As has been noticed, on the recommendation made by the M.L.A., the concerned Minister, apparently without even taking response from the Administrative Head, has simply indicated 'Please issue orders', which leaves no scope for any independent decision by the Administrative Head, which renders the decision vulnerable being influenced by the proposal and the recommendation made by the M.L.A. 36. The underline principle for effecting transfer i.e. public interest or administrative exigency has to be kept in mind and must be reflected from the record, which aspect, as noticed hereinbefore, is conspicuously absent, in not one order, but in series of orders which have been placed on record, as noticed hereinbefore. 37. Be that as it may, as noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner was placed A.P.O. from Jhunjhunu, which order was not questioned by him, whereafter, on the recommendation of the M.L.A. and directions of the concerned Minister, the petitioner in an extraordinary manner was accorded posted w.e.f. a future date i.e. by order dated 21/8/2020 he was accorded posting w.e.f. 1/9/2020 at Bhilwara. However, in the meanwhile, as another recommendation from another M.L.A. was received, as noticed, apparently oblivious of passing of the order dated 21/8/2020 posting the petitioner at Bhilwara, without obtaining comments, on the same day the concerned Minister ordered that Smt. Durga Kumari be posted at Bhilwara. 38. However, in the meanwhile, as another recommendation from another M.L.A. was received, as noticed, apparently oblivious of passing of the order dated 21/8/2020 posting the petitioner at Bhilwara, without obtaining comments, on the same day the concerned Minister ordered that Smt. Durga Kumari be posted at Bhilwara. 38. The material placed on record though apparently indicates that Smt. Durga Kumari may have had a genuine case of getting posted at Bhilwara on account of her husband working at Bhilwara and her ailing in-laws also staying at Bhilwara, the apparent manner in which the matter has proceeded does not meet the parameters, as noticed hereinbefore, in the administrative functioning. 39. The fact that the petitioner himself has adopted the same means, which he is seeking to question and has been a beneficiary of the similar recommendation made by the M.L.A. and the order passed by the concerned Minister on said recommendation, which led to passing of the order dated 21/8/2020, the petitioner apparently cannot be heard to question the validity of the order dated 31/8/2020 on the said ground, quashing of which order would result in restoring of the order dated 21/8/2020, which also is an outcome of same impugned procedure. As such, the procedure though as adopted/being regularly adopted by the respondents for effecting transfers/according postings cannot be countenanced, the plea raised the petitioner in the present case, in the peculiar circumstances, cannot be maintained and the same, therefore, does not merit acceptance. 40. So far as according posting of the petitioner at Laxmangarh (Alwar) is concerned, the material placed on record clearly indicates that the M.L.A. had brought to the notice of the concerned Minister regarding the requirement of filling up the vacant posts, based on which the concerned Minister directed filling up of the vacancies and the petitioner was chosen for being posted at Laxmangarh. Though, the reason indicated for choosing the petitioner for being posted, as indicated by the respondents, may not withstand scrutiny, the petitioner himself cannot make a choice as to where he must be posted and, therefore, on account of failure of petitioner's challenge to the order dated 31/8/2020, the order dated 16/9/2020 posting the petitioner at Laxmangarh also does not call for any interference. 41. 41. In view of the above, this Court reiterates the observations made in the case of Malchand (supra) and expect the respondent authorities to keep in mind the observations made earlier and hereinbefore while passing orders, which must reflect application of mind by the administrative authority and must not be mere outcome of recommendations made by any outside entity. 42. In view of the above discussion, the writ petitions filed by the petitioner questioning the validity of the order dated 31/8/2020 (Annex. 6) in C.W. No. 8199/2020 and order dated 16/9/2020 (Annex. 9) in C.W. No. 9572/2020, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, do not call for any interference. The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.