IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 168 (S/S) of 2008 Dr. S.C. Thaledi S/o Late Sri Mani Ram Thaledi At present posted as Programme Executive In Door Darshan Kendra Dehradun. ..........Petitioner. Versus 1. Broadcasting Corporation of India (Prasar Bharati), through C.E.O. P.T.I. Building IInd Floor Sansad Marg, New Delhi. 2. Director General Door Darshan, Broadcasting Corporation of India Door Darshan Bhawan, Copernicus Marg New Delhi. 3. Deputy Director (Administration) O/O Director General of Door Darshan Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Door Darshan Bhawan, Copernicus Marg New Delhi. 4. Station Director Door Darshan Kendra Dehradun. .............Respondents. Shri Rajendra Kotiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Arvind Vashisth, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondents. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned transfer order dated 03.05.2007 and also order dated 07.03.2008, whereby the petitioner is relieved in pursuance to the transfer order. The petitioner is a Programme Executive at Door Darshan Kendra, Dehradun, who was transferred vide order dated 03.05.2007 from Door Darshan Kendra, Dehradun to Door Darshan Kendra Daltonganj. Said order was earlier challenged by the petitioner by filling writ petition No. 1098 (S/S) of 2007, Dr. S.C. Thaledi Vs. Broadcasting Corporation of India and others. Said writ petition was decided by this Court vide order dated 27.12.2007, whereby it was directed that the petitioner would make representation, which shall be decided by the authority concerned. Meanwhile, the transfer order was kept in abeyance. The same transfer order is being challenged now by filing present writ petition along with the relieving order dated 07.03.2008, a copy of which is annexure-10 to the writ petition. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and that of learned counsel for the respondents, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned transfer order. Considering the papers on record, which includes the papers pertaining to illness of wife and mother of the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed with the observation that the respondents may consider the representation, if any, made by the petitioner, as to change in his place of new posting. It is clarified that the impugned orders are not stayed by this Court. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. 11.03.2008 Sweta