DHANNA RAM RAJPUROHIT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner Dr. Dhannaram has challenged the Order Ex. 7 dated 28 12. 19 8, by which, the petitioner has been transferred from Rajaldesar to Chandan in District Jaisalmer as Incharge Veterinary Hospital and in his place, Dr. Mahesh Prakash Gupta (respondent No. 3) has been transferred from Chandan to Rajaldesar in District Churu as Incharge, Veterinary Hospital, Rajaldesar.

(2.) THE facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition briefly stated are: that earlier, the petitioner was posted as Veterinary Doctor in Ratangarh for the past about 12 years THEreafter, he was transferred from Ratangarh to Sadri in District Pali vide Order Ex. 2 dated 27. 2. 1988 THE petitioner did not join his duties at Sadri and proceeded on medical leave upto. 21. 5. 1988. He joined back his duties at Ratangarh after his transfer order Ex. 2 was kept in abeyance. THEreafter, vide Order Ex. 4 dated 8. 8. 1988, the petitioner was again transferred from Ratangarh to village Chandan in District Jaisalmer and he again proceeded on leave. He made representations to the Govt. and thereafter, his transfer order from Ratangarh to Chandan was cancelled and he was transferred back to Rajaldesar vide Order Ex. 6 dated 30 9. 1988. THE petitioner resumed his duties at Rajaldesar and while he was working there, he was again transferred from Rajaldesar to village Chandan in District Jaisalmer vide Order Ex. 7 dated 28. 12. 1988, which is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) THE 'exigencies of service' came up for interpretation before their lordships of the Supreme Court in K. B. Shukla V. Union of India (2) wherein it has been held: "it is true that formation of opinion by the Central Govt. as to the 'existence of exigencies of the Service' requiring appointment by such method, as a pre-requisite for the exercise of the power. But the formation of such opinion is a matter, which in view of the particular nature of the function and the language of the provision, has primarily been left to the subjective satisfaction of the Government. In deed, it is as it ought to be. THE responsibility for good administration is that of the Government THE maintenance of an efficient, honest and experienced administrative service is a must for the due discharge of that responsibility. THErefore, the Govt. alone is a best suited to judge as to the existance of exigencies of such a service requiring appointments by transfer. THE term 'exigence' being understood in its widest and pragmative sense as rule, the court would not judge the propriety or sufficiency of such opinion by objective standards, save where the subjectc-tive process of forming it is vitiated by malafides, dishonesty, extraneous purpose or transgression of the limits circumscribed by the legislation. " It is, therefore, clear that satisfaction of the existence of exigencies of service is not open to judicial scruting except when it is vitiated by malafides, dishonesty, notice, colourable exercise of power or extraneous purpose or consideration.