JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, C.J. - This writ petition has been filed by three gentlemen. They were all working as Secretaries, Co-operative Society. They are aggrieved by an order dated 18th January, 1979 by which the three petitioners and a large number of other Secretaries were transferred from one society to another Co-operative society. 2. In Paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that it is true that the petitioner no. 1 has been transferred to a lower category of society by mistake and oversight. The District Administrative Committee shall reconsider the petitioner's case and shall transfer petitioner no. 1 in the same category of society. 3. In respect of petitioner no. 3, it has been stated in paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit that the petitioner no. 3 has also by oversight and mistake been transferred to a lower category of society. The District Administrative Committee undertake to reconsider the matter of petitioner no. 3 also and it shall transfer him in the same category of society. 4. It is, thus, clear that the impugned orders of transfer in respect of petitioners 1 and 1 cannot be sustained. 5. In respect of petitioner no. 2, the respondents contend in paragraph of the counter-affidavit that he has been transferred in the same category of society. They have denied the assertion in the writ petition to the contrary. It appears that petitioner no. 2 was working in Sadhan Sahakari Samiti Bhagatar the annual lending of which in the year 1977-78 was Rs. 1,14,099. He has been transferred to Sadhan Samiti Jarigal Eka no. 2 and the annual lending of that society in the year 1977- 8 was Rs. 1,37,000. The categorisation of these societies according to their annual lending is that societies of category III consist of societies having annual lending in the previous co-operative year of rupees three lakhs. According to the statement in the counter-affidavit both the societies were in the same category. 6. In the writ petition as well as in the rejoinder-affidavit it has been asserted that the annual lending capacity of the society was Rs 3.5 lakhs in the preceding co-operative year. They have not asserted as to what was the actual lending of this society in that year. The lending capacity of the society is not relevant, but it is the actual lending which is relevant. They have not asserted as to what was the actual lending of this society in that year. The lending capacity of the society is not relevant, but it is the actual lending which is relevant. Thus, it cannot be said that the assertions made in this behalf by the petitioner are relevant. 7. Petitioners have further stated that by their bard work and effort the actual lending of the societies in which they were working had considerably increased leading to their becoming entitled to higher categorisation. If that be so, the District Administrative Committee which passed the orders, may examine the matter and do the needful if the petitioners make any representation. 8. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned orders of transfer of petitioners nos. 1 and 3 are set aside. It will be open to the District Administrative Committee to consider their case afresh in accordance with law. It shall also be open to that Committee to reconsider the case of petitioned no. 2 if he makes and representation. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.