S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) MR. D. A. Bambhania raised a preliminary objection that these writ petitions are not maintainable as the petitioners had challenged the order of transfer earlier before this Court and the writ petition was already been dismissed. The same transfer order has been challenged by the petitioners in this writ petition and as such the same are not maintainable. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the petitioners made submission on merits of the case challenging the order of transfer. So far as the preliminary objection of the learned counsel for the respondent is concerned, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioners were given the right to make representation to the respondent against the order of transfer but that representation has not been decided and as such this writ petition is Maintainable. It has next been contended that the action of the respondent to defer the decision on the representation of the petitioner till they report to the new unit where they have been ordered to be transferred is wholly illegal and arbitrary. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THE petitioner in paragraph 14 (a) of the writ petition has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned transfer orders Annexures a and b. A further prayer has been made for quashing of annexure d. The aforesaid prayer reads as under:"14 (A ). Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned transfer orders at Annexures A and B and also the order at Annexure d and further directing the respondents not to disturb the petitioner from his original posting at ahmedabad. "the learned Counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that these very transfer orders were subject-matter of challenge by the petitioners in Spl. Civil Application No. 10817/95. In paragraph (3. 3) of these petitions, the petitioner has made a submission. "3. 3. Since the transfer order was passed mala fide and without any reason whatsoever, the petitioner preferred Special civil Application No. 10822/95 before this honble Court. Civil Application No. 10817/95. In paragraph (3. 3) of these petitions, the petitioner has made a submission. "3. 3. Since the transfer order was passed mala fide and without any reason whatsoever, the petitioner preferred Special civil Application No. 10822/95 before this honble Court. Since the Honble Court was of the view that the appropriate course would be, as observed by Honble Supreme court of India in AIR 1981 SC 1577 , to make necessary application and to get the same decided by the respondents, this honble Court disposed of the said petition by order dated 21st December 1995. A copy of the said order is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure c to this petition. In this said order this Honble Court directed the petitioner to make a representation to the authorities and further directed the authorities to decide the same within two weeks thereafter. " ( 3 ) FROM the averments made in the aforesaid paragraph, it is no more in dispute that these very transfer orders have been challenged by the petitioners before this Court. The petitioners though very conveniently avoided to mention in this paragraph that in the writ petition No. 10822/95 these transfer orders were held to be valid by this Court, the petitioners filed the copy of this order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition on 21st december 1995 as Annexure "c". The order of transfer had been challenged by the petitioner in the previous writ petition on the ground that it is effected in contravention of the Government Circular, i. e. the guidelines dated 26th August 1995. The further challenge was made on the ground that the petitioners were not liable to be transferred as even if they are treated as surplus then the juniormost should have been sent. Both the contentions were not accepted by this Court which is clear from annexure "c". This Court has held:"in my opinion, such question cannot be decided in exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of india. "the writ petition has been dismissed finally. During the course of the arguments in the previous writ petition, the Counsel for the petitioner submitted that number of difficulties will arise if the petitioner is transferred. The Counsel for the petitioner has also highlighted the family circumstances and problems. "the writ petition has been dismissed finally. During the course of the arguments in the previous writ petition, the Counsel for the petitioner submitted that number of difficulties will arise if the petitioner is transferred. The Counsel for the petitioner has also highlighted the family circumstances and problems. On these submissions, this Court has observed:"in my opinion, appropriate course would be as observed by Honble the supreme Court of India in the case of shanti Kumari v. Regional Deputy director, Health Services, Patna Division, patna and Ors. , AIR 1981 SC 1577 to make necessary application and to get the application/representation decided. In the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly considering the family problems to which my attention, was drawn by the learned Counsel for the, petitioner at the time of hearing, it is directed that if the petitioner makes , an application or representation, the authorities will decide the same sympathetically in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will make such representation latest by December 26, t 1995, If such representation is made the authorities will decide the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within two weeks thereafter. " ( 4 ) SO this Court has, not accepted the case of the petitioner on merits, but the observation is made that for personal difficulties and other circumstances the proper course is to make representation and in case such representation is made the court has observed that the authority will decide the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within two weeks thereafter. The petitioner of this writ petition has challenged those very transfer orders and that too on the same grounds as is borne out from the reading of paragraph 9 of this writ petition which reads as under:,"9. The petitioner states that the guidelines for transfer of employees are as under: "civilian Class IV employees are posted against vacancies which occur at particular stations. They will continue to serve at those stations and can be called at unit HQ as and when required on temporary duty for minimum duration. Personnel posted with detachments at outstations at present will not be disturbed. Whenever OC units feel that a change in posting is required, necessary proposals should be submitted to this Dt. duly recommended by the Gp. Cdr. for consideration and issue of posting order. Personnel posted with detachments at outstations at present will not be disturbed. Whenever OC units feel that a change in posting is required, necessary proposals should be submitted to this Dt. duly recommended by the Gp. Cdr. for consideration and issue of posting order. "the petitioner says and submits that admittedly these requirements are not met in the present case. In spite of these clear-cut directions the petitioner is sought to transfer under the guise of 10% cut. As per the above guidelines the petitioner cannot be disturbed at all. The 10% cut is raised only with a view to disturb the petitioner and transferring him to Surendranagar. Hence the impugned orders are passed mala fide and no rules have been followed as mentioned. " ( 5 ) FROM the facts stated above, it is clear that on the same cause of action and for the same relief the petitioner has filed this second writ petition after dismissal of the first writ petition. I find sufficient merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that when the previous writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging these transfer orders has been dismissed on merits, this second writ petition is not maintainable. In case successive writ petitions are allowed to be filed, there will be no end to litigations and it will not attain finality. Though the provisions of CPC may not be applicable to proceedings under artticle 226, but its principles can be made applicable to the proceedings under Article 226 in an appropriate case. Once the decision has been given on merits on the validity, legality and correctness of the order of transfer of the petitioners, then the decision given by this Court attains finality and it is not open to the petitioners to file fresh writ petition. It operates as conclusive decision between the parties. This decision is final and the correctional remedy is by way of appeal or in appropriate case by way of review but not by way of filing fresh writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution as is done in the present case. Reference may have to the decision of this court in the case of Natwar Textile processors Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of india and Ors. , reported in 1990 (1) G. L. R. 338. Reference may have to the decision of this court in the case of Natwar Textile processors Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of india and Ors. , reported in 1990 (1) G. L. R. 338. It was a case where the writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioner without any permission to file fresh petition. The subsequent writ petition on the same cause of action was held to be not maintainable by this Court on the ground that no liberty to file has been granted to the petitioner. Here is a case whether the previous writ petition which has been filed by the petitioner has been decided on merits. Though it is not necessary to go on the merits of the case, but as the Counsel for the petitioners has, made submission on merits also, I consider it proper to deal with the same again. The challenge to the order of transfer has been made only on the ground of violation of the guidelines for transfer which are undisputably administrative and not statutory. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. S. L. Abbas, reported in 1993 (4) SCC is a complete reply to the contention of the Counsel for the petitioner. I cannot do better than to make reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case in paragraphs 6 and 7. The transfer made in violation of the guidelines which have no statutory force does not confer upon the petitioners a legally enforceable right. An order of transfer is an incident of Government service. May be by transfer the employee may have some personal difficulties or some family difficulties but that fact alone does not give him a legally enforceable right and this court cannot quash the order of transfer on the aforesaid grounds, The challenge to the orders of transfer of the petitioners annexure "a" and "b" made in this writ petition is not maintainable. The writ petition to the extent it relates to the challenge to the aforesaid transfer orders is an abuse of the process of the court. ( 6 ) THE writ petition to the extent it relates to the challenge to the orders of transfer Annexure "a" and "b" is dismissed with cost of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand ). The petitioners are directed to pay Rs. ( 6 ) THE writ petition to the extent it relates to the challenge to the orders of transfer Annexure "a" and "b" is dismissed with cost of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand ). The petitioners are directed to pay Rs. 1000/- each to the respondent by way of cost. So far as the challenge made by the petitioners to the order annexure "d" is concerned that too is not sustainable. It is true, that the respondent could not have deferred the decision on the representation made to it by the petitioners in view of the directions of this Court in the previous writ petition. The rider which has been put for decision on the representation of the petitioner to first join at the unit where they have been transferred is contemptuous. The previous writ petition has been dismissed and the petitioners have to join their duties at the transferred place. It may be a case of non- compliance of the orders of the superior officers which may amount to serious or grave misconduct but for which the respondents have other remedy to proceed departmentally but the decision on the representation of the petitioners could not be deferred. If the representation has been made, then, it has to be decided, it is a different matter whether it is accepted or not within the period as granted by this court for this purpose but at the same time this writ petition to the extent it relates to the challenge to Annexure "d" is ill advised. At the most, it can be said that the respondent has flouted the order of this court for which the proper course and the remedy is to bring this fact to the notice of the Court by filing a contempt petition. It is a case of non-compliance of directions issued by this Court by the respondent which has to be dealt with under Article 215 of the Constitution and not under article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners insistence not to proceed to their transferred place even after the dismissal of the writ petition on merits cannot be appreciated. It is a case of non-compliance of directions issued by this Court by the respondent which has to be dealt with under Article 215 of the Constitution and not under article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners insistence not to proceed to their transferred place even after the dismissal of the writ petition on merits cannot be appreciated. The representation has to be made and it has to be decided in time but after the dismissal of the writ petition the petitioners could riot have taken the law in their own hands and deferred the compliance to the order of transfer presumably under the belief that unless the representation is decided it has not to be carried out. Once the order of transfer has been passed transferee has to comply with the same unless the operation of the same has been stayed by some appropriate authority or the Court, but it is a matter for the respondent and not for this court to consider and take appropriate action against the petitioners. After going through the contents of order Annexure d, I am prima facie satisfied that it is a case where the respondent made a deliberate attempt to flout the order of this court. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case where the powers under Article 215 of the constitution has to be exercised. In exercise of powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, I hereby draw the contempt proceedings against the respondent-Ranjit Singh. Lt. Col. Officiating Director for Dy. Director general, NCC, Ahmedabad for committing the contempt of the order of this Court dated 21-12-1995 passed in Spl. Civil application No. 10822/95. Issue notice to the respondent-Ranjit Singh Lt, Col. Officiating Director for Dy. Director general, NCC. Ahmedabad returnable on 18-3-1996 to show cause why he should not be punished for committing the contempt of the order of this Court dated 21-12-1995 in Spl. Civil Application No. 10822/95. The respondent-Ranjit Singh is further directed to remain personally present in the Court on the next date of hearing. .