1 `19 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4158/2006 [FATEH SINGH BHATI VS. DIRECTOR & DY. SECRETARY, JAIPUR & ORS.] Dated : 11.03.2008 HON'BLE MR. MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, J. Dr.P.S. Bhati for the petitioner. Mr.Shyam Ladrecha GA for the respondent. ***** By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.07.2006 and the order passed by the Tribunal dated 31.07.2006. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the officer working on the post of Asstt. Director (Junior) is not liable to be transferred to a Mandi which is not falling in the required category. It is contended that as per the Rules work can be assigned to the Asstt. Director (Junior) by deputing him in the Directorate Office, Mandi of A and B categories and against the leave reserve post etc. In that regard my attention has bee drawn towards Annex.4 wherein the cadre strength of different mandi samiti and of the office of Directorate etc. has been provided. At Item No.4 the post of Asstt. Director (Junior) has been shown along with cadre strength of the post in different mandies as well as in the Directorate itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention towards Annex.2 where different mandi Samities have been categories in different classes. Perusal of Item No.92 shows that Nokha (Bikaner) is a Mandi falling in category 'B' whereas Doongarpur falls in 'D' 2 category of Mandi Samiti hence the petitioner was not liable to be transferred to the Mandi Samiti categorize other than 'A' and 'B' class. The impugned order otherwise does not show that the petitioner is being transferred against leave reserve vacancies and in any case an employee holding the post of Asstt. Director (Junior) is not liable to be transferred to Mandi Samiti of 'D' Category. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is a matter of transfer/deputation thus no interference should be made by this Court. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and find that when the respondents themselves have determined the cadre strength then sentity is required to be given to said order while issuing the order of transfer/posting hence the impugned order of transfer cannot be allowed to stand where the petitioner has been transferred to a Mandi Samiti of 'D' Category whereas the petitioner is working on the post of Asstt. Director (Junior). It is further a fact submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is retiring only after ten months thus looking to the reason aforesaid also and the impugned order dated 15.07.2006 as otherwise was stayed by this Court vide order dated 02.07.2006 remain in-operational through out the intervening period and now looking to the reasons discussed aforesaid apart from the fact that petitioner is retiring after 10 months, the impugned order is set aside. 3 The writ petition is allowed accordingly and the order of the Tribunal dated 31.07.2006 is also set aside. (MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI), J. mamta