JUDGMENT A.N. Dikshita, J. - The petitioner by means of this petition has challenged the order dated 2-7-1986 passed by Director, Harijan and Social Welfare (Directorate) U.P. Lucknow transferring her on administrative grounds from the post of Superintendent, Government Certified Home. Sheokuti, Allahabad to the post of Superintendent, Government Certified Home, Faizabad. 2. The petitioner is working on the said post at Allahabad w.e.f. 22-10-1977. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 has no right or jurisdiction to pass orders for the transfer of the petitioner from Allahabad to Faizabad. Another grievance of the petitioner is that as early as 25-10-78 the respondent No. 2 passed an order directing that the petitioner be transferred to Uttarkashi. As the order was illegal and being in the absence of any justification a Claim Petition No. 817/S-3 of 1978 was preferred before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow which was admitted on 3-11-1978 and an order staying the operation of the order transferring her from Allahabad to Uttarkashi was passed on 3-11-78 and by another order dated 8-11-78. Later on the order transferring the petitioner from Allahabad to Uttarkashi was withdrawn and cancelled by the respondents and the Tribunal was informed accordingly on 30-11-78 that the claim petition has become infructuous in view of the withdrawal/ cancellation of the order transferring the petitioner to Uttarkashi. After withdrawal and cancellation of such an order was passed another order dated 28-1-79 was passed transferring her to Agra. This was again resisted by the petitioner and the respondents stayed the operation of this order also. As the powers vested in the petitioner in respect of drawing and disbursing were withdrawn, the petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal which directed the maintenance of status quo as existed on 8-11-1978. Another order was passed on 15-6-1982 transferring her to Faizabad but on representation by the petitioner it was stayed and later on withdrawn. Again another order transferring her from Allahabad to Kanpur was passed and it was again resisted by the petitioner but the same was again withdrawn. After a lapse of about three years from the order transferring her from Allahabad to Kanpur the impugned order of transfer dated 2-7-86 has been passed by respondent No.2 transferring her from Allahabad to Faizabad, thus giving rise to this petition. 4. After a lapse of about three years from the order transferring her from Allahabad to Kanpur the impugned order of transfer dated 2-7-86 has been passed by respondent No.2 transferring her from Allahabad to Faizabad, thus giving rise to this petition. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents to which a rejoinder-affidavit has also been filed. 5. Sri Palok Basu learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the respondents had no right or jurisdiction to transfer the petitioner in view of the claim petition filed as early as 1978 and more so when the Tribunal has ordered for maintenance of the status quo-vide orders dated 29-1-79 and the order dated 2-7-79. He however, very fairly conceded that feeling aggrieved by the order of transfer dated 2-7-86 transferring the petitioner from Allahabad to Faizabad the matter can be agitated before the Tribunal for which a claim petition would be maintainable. With his straight forwardness he has also conceded that the power of granting stay which vested with the Tribunal earlier is no more subsisting in view of the amendment in the act. He has thus submitted that the impugned order of transfer is liable to be quashed and in any case as the powers of granting stay against such an order is no more available with the Tribunal this court should pass suitable stay order as the claim petition in respect of her transfer from Allahabad to Uttarkashi is pending disposal before the Tribunal finally on 29-12-86. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the counter-affidavit and the rejoinder-affidavit it is clear that this petition invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution has been primarily filed only to obtain a stay order. It would tantamount to assume the jurisdiction in regard to the validity or propriety of the transfer order for which otherwise an alternative remedy is available with the petitioner to file a claim petition before the Public Service Tribunal. It also be noticed that the questions raised by the petitioner regarding power of transfer in respect of her post are subject matter of the claim petition already preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner is posted at Allahabad w.e.f. 22-10-77. It also be noticed that the questions raised by the petitioner regarding power of transfer in respect of her post are subject matter of the claim petition already preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner is posted at Allahabad w.e.f. 22-10-77. The impugned order Annexure-12 to the writ petition clearly indicates that the petitioner is transferred from Allahabad to Faizabad on the same post and with the same pay and allowances. This order of transfer has been passed on administrative grounds and would be effective immediately. It is clear that on the refusal of the petitioner to hand over charge it was assumed by Smt. Anitha Chatterjee, Dy. Director, Harijan Samaj Kalyan Vibhag, Allahabad Mandal, Allahabad on 5-7-86. Further as per the showing of the petitioner as well as in view as the averments contained in the counter-affidavit complaints of corruption, misfeasance of funds and irregularities committed were received against the petitioner. The order dated 2-7-86 has been passed on administrative ground without any prejudice to the petitioner either in respect of her rank or emolument. A public servant cannot claim to retain a post as long as he or she wishes. Nine years have elapsed since her posting to Allahabad and we are not satisfied that the impugned order of transfer requires invoking of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and more so when on the own admission of the petitioner an alternative remedy is available and she can prefer a claim petition before the Tribunal. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would not grant a relief only to the extent of staying the impugned order of transfer when the validity and legality of such an action is already being examined in the claim petition preferred by the petitioner before the Public Service Tribunal. 7. A public servant on any transfer would be put to some inconvenience but that by itself would not give him a lever to maintain that he has a right to work on the post as any shifting would cause him inconvenience. Such inconvenience is always inherent and cannot be agitated by him. The respondents even on such showing do not forfeit their right of transfer. This court cannot create a stalemate or disruption in the functioning of the Directorate. Neither such an interference is required nor justified. 8. Such inconvenience is always inherent and cannot be agitated by him. The respondents even on such showing do not forfeit their right of transfer. This court cannot create a stalemate or disruption in the functioning of the Directorate. Neither such an interference is required nor justified. 8. Before parting with this petition it may be observed that the resistance to transfer orders are assuming alarming trend and dismaying tendency which do not deserve any applause or protection. 9. In view of the surrounding circumstances and the admitted facts on record which has encompassed the instant controversy we are of the view that this is not a fit case for interference while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition being ill-merited deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed in limine. There shall be no order as to costs.