WP(C) 5202/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. Barua, learned Central Government Standing Counsel. The petitioner, who is presently serving as Gate Keeper in Secur ity Section and posted at Tezpur has made a challenge to the order dated 28-04-2 007, which finds mention in the movement order dated 20-11-2007 (Annexure-12). In the order of transfer, the petitioner has been shown as Store Keeper, which a ccording to the respondents, is because of his promotional transfer. Thus, acco rding to the respondents, the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Store Keeper from the post of Gate Keeper. On the other hand, it is the stand of the petitioner that since he has foregone his promotion, the authority cannot transf er him in the promotional post. It is also the further case of the petitioner t hat the place to which the petitioner has been transferred does not have any pos t of Gate Keeper. The petitioner has assigned certain other grounds to question the legality and validity of the order of transfer. Mr. Barua, learned Central Government Standing Counsel on the ba sis of the instruction received by him submits that the Director General of Bord er Roads in consideration of the matter in its entirety has approved the transfe r order of the petitioner as Gate Keeper to Chandigarh. However, Mr. Mahanta, l earned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no post of Gate Keeper a t Chandigarh. He has also questioned the power and jurisdiction of the authorit y who has issued the transfer order. Having regard the limited scope of interference of this Court in exercise of the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met i f the petitioner makes a representation to the competent authority of the respon dents highlighting the grievance relating to the impugned order of transfer. In the event of making such representation within a period of 15 days from today, the competent authority of the respondents shall consider and dispose of the sam e in accordance with law by a speaking order. Such disposal shall be made as ex peditiously as possible but at any rate not later than one month from today. Ti ll disposal of the representation that may be filed by the petitioner, status qu o as on today shall be maintained.