D. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged two orders dated 9th November. 1998 contained in Annexures-1 and 2 to this writ petition. By the Impugned order contained in Annexure-1, the Upri Ganga nahar Adhunlkikaran Khand has been restructured as Gun Niyantran Khand. Basti and is being shifted to Basti. By the second order, the charge was directed to be handed over in accordance with the provisions made in the said order. Relying on these two orders, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma contends that on account of such restructuring, the petitioner would be transferred. Such transfer will affect adversely on the petitioner since his wife is suffering from kidney problem. Therefore, according to him. these two orders should be quashed. ( 2 ) MR. I. S. Slngh. learned standing counsel on the other hand opposes the said contention on the ground that if for administrative reasons, the project is transferred or reorganised or restructured, the same does not confer any right on an individual employee to challenge the same, even if such restructuring affects him and causes any hardship. Therefore, according to him, the writ petition is misconceived. ( 3 ) MR. Sharma however, relied upon a decision in the case of S. C. Duggal v. Department of personnel and others, to support his contention that the petitioner having made a representation, he could not be transferred without considering the same. He also contends that in similar circumstances, this Court was pleased to stay the order of transfer. One such order is mentioned in paragraph 7 of the writ petition. wherein it is stated that an order was passed In Writ Petition no. 17811 of 1998 relying on an order dated 13th April. 1998 passed in Writ Petition No. 10974 of 1998. In the said order, the representation of the Ministerial Association of the irrigation department was directed to be considered and till such consideration, the transfer could not be implemented. ( 4 ) I have heard both Mr. Sharma and Mr. I. S. Singh, learned standing counsel. ( 5 ) SO far as the order mentioned in paragraph 7 of the writ petition is concerned, there is nothing on record to compare the facts of those writ petitions with that of the present petition. ( 4 ) I have heard both Mr. Sharma and Mr. I. S. Singh, learned standing counsel. ( 5 ) SO far as the order mentioned in paragraph 7 of the writ petition is concerned, there is nothing on record to compare the facts of those writ petitions with that of the present petition. No material has been produced to show as to how the facts of those cases are similar to this case. Even if the question Involved is raised, the same was a general order by which the entire question of shifting of the department was to be reconsidered on the basis of the representation as directed in the said order by which the petitioners case could not have been included because the petitioner has not challenged any individual order transferring him or posting him elsewhere. ( 6 ) BE that as it may, the orders contained in Annexures-1 and 2 as mentioned hereinbefore, relate to reorganising the entire establishment on the changed circumstances and restructuring the same according to the administrative necessity. It is for the administration to consider as to how it would reorganize or restructure its establishment for administrative purposes. The Court cannot interfere with such administrative decisions in respect of the whole organization. If It is decided in the given facts and circumstances of the case, then the organisation requires to be restructured and reorganized. In that event, the Court cannot substitute its own view. It is the administration who is responsible for administering its own establishment. It is for them as to how best it could be administered. The Court has no concern with the administration of the establishment of the respondents whether it could be better administered from a particular place or from any other place and it is in the absolute discretion of the administration itself with which the Court cannot interfere. How the administration will run and who will take over charge on the basis of such reorganisation or restructuring, is also an administrative decision, which cannot be interfered with by the Court at the instance of a particular individual employee even if he suffers extreme hardship or Inconvenience. An employee is subject to the administrative decisions of restructure and reorganisation of the establishment. Unless it affects his service condition, he has no right to challenge the same. In the present case, no such challenge has been thrown. An employee is subject to the administrative decisions of restructure and reorganisation of the establishment. Unless it affects his service condition, he has no right to challenge the same. In the present case, no such challenge has been thrown. No such pleading has been made. The only ground on which it has been challenged is that the petitioners wife is suffering from kidney ailment and, therefore, if the petitioner is transferred elsewhere, it would be an extreme hardship on his part. This cannot be a ground for interference by this Court with the administrative decision of restructuring of the establishment. ( 7 ) SO far as the decision in the case of S. C. Duggal (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner 13 concerned, it had held that if an employee makes a representation against an order of transfer on the ground of personal hardship, it is the duty of the employer to consider the same and the authorities cannot brush aside the grievances of the employee merely on the ground that the hardship is purely personal to the employee. The said decision is confined to an order of transfer. Here no order of transfer has been challenged. Therefore, the said ratio does not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Inasmuch as here, no order of transfer has yet been passed as an individual against the petitioner. ( 8 ) IN that view of the matter. I do not see any reason to Interfere with the orders contained in annexures-1 and 2 respectively. In case the petitioner feels aggrieved, he may pursue his representation which he had made being Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The respondent concerned may consider his representation in accordance with law, according to his own wisdom and discretion without being influenced by any of the observations made above having regard to its administrative necessities. ( 9 ) THE writ petition, thus, falls and is accordingly dismissed. No cost. .