D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is Accountant in State services in the forest Department. He was working on deputatidn with M. P. State Mining Forest produce, Commerce and Development Co-operative Federation Limited, (respondent No. 2) with its branch at Dindori (Mandla), (respondent No. 4 ). By order anncxurc-P/1 dated 29. 5. 1996 issued by the Conservator of Forests, Central Circle, jabalpur, he has been brought back from Dindori to his parent department at the same place in the Forest Division at Dindori, The said order has been challenged in this petition. ( 2 ) SHRI N. S. Ruprah, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, relies on a general circular issued by the Managing Director of the Federation to all Divisional forest Officers dated 3rd April, 1996. By the said circular, the D. F. Os. have been instructed not to call any employee on deputation to the Federation without prior permission of the head office of the Federation. The learned Counsel contends that contrary to the above circular Annexure-P/4, the Conservator of Forests, Jabalpur who was not competent to call back the petitioner from the services of the Federation where he was working on deputation, called back the petitioner to Forest department. The permission of the Managing Director in the head office having not been obtained, the order Annexure-P/1 was in excess of authority of the Conservator of forests. On an advance notice of the petition to the Government Advocate, documents along with an application have been filed on behalf of the State in which it has been pointed out that the order passed by the Conservator of Forests calling the petitioner from the deputation back to parent department has been approved by the managing Director of the Federation vide his communication dated 17. 7. 1996. ( 3 ) ON the production of the above document, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the order Annexure-P/1 when issued was without authority and is not validated by a subsequent order of approval or confirmation passed by the managing Director. Strong reliance is placed on the observations in paragraph 5 of the decision of the Supreme Court in dr. Ramesh Chandra Tyagi v. Union of India and others, (1994) 2 SCC 416 . ( 4 ) HAVING also heard in reply Shri P. D. . Strong reliance is placed on the observations in paragraph 5 of the decision of the Supreme Court in dr. Ramesh Chandra Tyagi v. Union of India and others, (1994) 2 SCC 416 . ( 4 ) HAVING also heard in reply Shri P. D. . Gupta, G. A. , Appearing for the respondents, I have looked into the relevant paragraph 5 of the judgment of the supreme Court (supra ). In that case the stand taken on behalf of the Union was that there was subsequently an order of delegation in favour of the authorities making transfer. On those facts, the Supreme Court held that on the date of transfer since no delegation existed, the transfer was without jurisdiction. The case of the Supreme court is also distinguishable on a further observation made therein that a definite stand was taken in that case by the respondents that the transfer order was approved but it was not produced in the Court below nor was substantiated before the Supreme court. In the instant case, it is true that the order approving or confirming the transfer issued by the Managing Director was subsequent to the order of transfer. But it cannot be said that for that reason alone this Court would be justified in interfering in the order whereby the petitioner as an employee working on deputation has been called back to his parent department. The invalidity, if any, in the initial order issued by the Conservator of Forests stands cured by the grant of confirmation or approval to the same on 17. 7. 1996 by the Managing Director of the Federation. The order of managing Director approving the order of Conservator removes the defect or irregularity committed in breach of executive instructions. This is a service matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of State Administrative Tribunal and since that forum is not available this Court has been approached. ( 5 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, no case is made out for grant of any relief. The prayer for interim relief is rejected and the petition stands disposed of. .