RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) IN all these petitions the following common question of law arises for consideration : whether Section 91 A inserted by Act 40 of 1981 into the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 ('the Act' for short) which provides for transfer of employees of a corporation to a corresponding post in any other corporation or in any local authority constituted or deemed to have been constituted under any law, is beyond the legislative competence of the State legislature ? ( 2 ) THE facts of these petitions, in brief, are as follow: Petitioners in Writ petitions Nos. 12506 and 12507/84 were employees of the Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation which was originally constituted under Bombay Provisional municipal Corporation Act, 1949, and now continuing to function under the act. In all other Writ Petitions the petitioners were employees of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore constituted under the City of Bangalore Municipal corporation Act, 1949, and now continuing to function under the provisions of the Act. The Act, enacted as a common law for the whole State providing for constitution and organisation of the Municipal Corporations, come into force on the First day of June, 1977. Section 421 of the Act empowers the state Government to make rules regulating recruitment and conditions of service of the employees of each of the Corporations. However employment under each of the Corporation is separate and the power to make appointments is vested in the Corporation or authorities of the corporation concerned. There is on common service for all Corporations constituted under the Act. Section 91a was inserted in the Act by Karnataka Act 40 of 1981 which reads :"91a. TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, the State Government may transfer any officer or servant of a corporation to a corresponding post in any other corporation or in any local authority constituted or deemed to have been constituted under any law made by the State legislature or in the Government. TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, the State Government may transfer any officer or servant of a corporation to a corresponding post in any other corporation or in any local authority constituted or deemed to have been constituted under any law made by the State legislature or in the Government. (2) The officer or servant transferred under sub-sec'ion (1) shall, subject to any rule or other provision made under this Act or under Article 309 of the constitution be entirled to the same remuneration and be subject to the same terms and conditions of service and to the same lights and privileges as to pension, gratuity, provident fund, and such other matters as he would have held under the corporation from which he was so transferred. "in exercise of the powers conferred under the above provision, the State government issued orders, which are impugned herein, transferring the petitioners from one corporation to another and, thereafter, the petitioners have challenged to constitutional validity of the above provision. ( 3 ) THE main grounds on which the constitutional validity of Section 91a is challenged are as follow : Each of the corporation constituted under the provisions of the Act is a separate and distinct body. The petitioners, on their own volition, have joined the services of a particular corporation. There is relationship of master and servant between the corporation concerned and the petitioner. The State Legislature has no power to enact a provision conferring power on the Government to transfer the employees of one corporation to another or to any other local authority as it would amount to compelling the petitioners and persons who are similarly placed, to serve a different master. Such a compulsion would also be hit by article 23 of the Constitution. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for respondent- 2 (Corporation) pointed out that the petitioners would in no way, be affected regarding their conditions of service, rights and privileges, and prospects of promotion as express protection is given to them under sub-section (2) of section 91 A of the Act. Therefore, it is clear that one of the contention raised by the petitioners, namely, that their conditions of service would be affected is untenable except the fact that they would be made liable to work in different corporations on their transfer from one corporation to another. Therefore, it is clear that one of the contention raised by the petitioners, namely, that their conditions of service would be affected is untenable except the fact that they would be made liable to work in different corporations on their transfer from one corporation to another. ( 5 ) THE question regarding constitutional validity of S. 91a, of the Act raised in these petitions is not res integra. Section 320 of the Karnataka municipalities Act, 1964 is similar to section 91a of the Act. The validity of that section was challenged before this court in Ramachandra Shetty v State of karnataka and others (1979 (2) Kantlj. 173 ). On similar grounds. A Division bench of this Court repelled the contentions of the petitioners and upheld the validity of Section 320 of the Karnataka municipalities Act, 1964, holding that entry 5 of List II of the VII Schedule to the Constitution, which enable, the state Legislature to make a Law regarding the constitution and powers of municipal corporations, improvement trusts, district boards, mining settlement authorities and other Ideal authorities for the purpose of local seif-Govarnment or village adminisiration was wide enough to incorporate a provision similar to section 320 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act 1964. Therefore, the ratio of the said decision applies on ail fours to this case. ( 6 ) IN the result, I make the following : writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. --- *** ---