JUDGMENT S.K. Mookerji, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. It appears that the petitioner has been transferred from Yatrik Niwas Khand III Division, Varanasi to Nalkup-I (Irrigation Department), Varanasi, and one Paras Nath Rai by the common transfer order has been transferred to the post, which was held by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the impugned transfer order against him has been passed in contravention of the Government orders, dated 6 March 1990 (annexure 3), 7 February 1990 (annexure 4) and 1 March 1990 (annexure 5). After examining this argument, I am not inclined to accept that the transfer order is vitiated because there is violation of the Government orders, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the transfer order, he may approach the Government making a claim that the transfer order is bad because it has violated Government orders. However, this Court cannot go into this matter. The second point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the present transfer order suffers from malafide. The allegations of mala fide cannot be examined in this writ petition as the persons against whom mala fide is alleged have not been made parties. The third argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has been transferred only to accommodate one Paras Nath Rai. This fact has been averred in Para. 11 of the writ petition. It is also urged that Paras Nath Rai having political connection is staying in the district of Varanasi for many years whereas the petitioner was working on the project, which is likely to come to an end within a month, has been transferred for accommodating Paras Nath Rai. This averment is rather serious and it is rather strange that Paras Nath Rai is permitted to stay at the station for a long time whereas the petitioner has been transferred from the department and in the same department Paras Nath Rai was brought in his place. However, at this stage, this allegation made by the petitioner cannot be gone into in this writ petition. It is, therefore, open for the petitioner to make a representation before appropriate authority stating all the facts in detail. If such an application is made within a week, it shall be looked into and decided by the said authority expeditiously. However, at this stage, this allegation made by the petitioner cannot be gone into in this writ petition. It is, therefore, open for the petitioner to make a representation before appropriate authority stating all the facts in detail. If such an application is made within a week, it shall be looked into and decided by the said authority expeditiously. The application, mentioned above, shall be made along with a certified copy of the judgment passed by this application shall also be disposed of within a week from the date of presentation of above application. Thus, the entire controversy in the matter of transfer of the petitioner shall be settled within a period of two weeks from today. In this view of the matter, the petitioner shall not be transferred from the post he is holding for a period of two weeks from today. It is hoped that respondent 2 shall comply with the order of this Court on merits and in accordance with law. It is also made clear that in case the application of the petitioner is rejected the impugned transfer order shall be given effect to without any delay. 3. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of.