In a parliamentary system of democracy, the Minister is the highest responsible functionary for matters relating to his department and that the Minister's desire or acceptance of recommendations from public representatives for transfer of officers/employees is not a case of bias.

1. - In these Special Appeals the appellants have challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18th July, 1990 rejecting the writ petitions.

2. Brief facts of the case (Appeal No. 268/90) are that the appellant- petitioner was transferred in the public interest vide Annexure-1 dated 22nd December, 1989 from Nawalgarh to Lunkaransar. Appellant-petitioner has challenged this transfer order on. the ground that the order dated 22nd December, 1989 (Annex.1) is absolutely arbitrary. It was also submitted in the writ petition that the order being violative of the aforesaid provisions of the Rules of 1975 i.e. Agriculture Produce Markets Service Rules 1975 is illegal and is liable to be quashed. There is an allegation of malafide to this extent that transfer order has been issued on the desire of the Minister concerned to accommodate non- petitioner No.4 which amounts to undue interference of the politicians in the matter of transfer within the ambit of the aforesaid Rules of 1975. The Minister is not a party in the writ petition. Case of the appellant in appeal No. 269/90 is more or less identical.

3. Learned Single judge has held that in case of transfer from one division to another so far as the employee is transferred otherwise on his own request his seniority has to be taken into consideration after taking into account his past continuous service which counts for seniority in that category in the old market Committee. Thus the dispute relating to the seniority was decided in favour of the present appellants. However, the learned single Judge further held that if the Minister concerned can have no power to transfer in the department under him who else will have power to transfer him. Orders are passed by the competent authority ultimately on the desire of the Minister. None can take objection unless mala fides are shown so far as the Minister incharge of the Department is concerned. The transfer order was maintained and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the Hon'ble Minister had no jurisdiction to express his desire in the matter of transfer and it should be presumed that it is malice in law.

5. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the transfer order was passed to accommodate others (non-petitioner No.4) which has resulted in their up- rooting. Learned counsel for the appellants has cited before us the case of (1) Om Prakash Sharma V. State of Rajasthan (1989 (1) R.L.R. 826) .

6. In Om Prakash Sharma's case the learned Single Judge of this court held that transfer made on desire or direction of Minister or his Private Secretary is arbitrary and suffers from malice in law as such the same should be quashed. Thus the view taken by the learned Single Judge in that case is different from the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the present cases.

7. The Division Bench of this court in the case of (2) Shambhu Dayal Kureel Vs. Union of India (1982 R.L.R. 181) has held that "In public service transfer is an incident of service is often necessary for a proper management and control of administrative machinery. It can therefore be said that the power of transfer is an essential attribute of the power of the administrative control. Since the transfers are made for reasons of administrative exigencies the authority incharge of the administration would be best judge of the propriety necessity or desirability of such transfer. The exercise of administrative discretion in the matter of transfer of an employee from one post to another would not be open to challenge except when the said discretion has been exercised in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner so as to violate the right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 if the transfer is made on account of exigencies of administration and is not from a higher post to a lower post. Their Lordships further held that it is for the Government to cons