Judgment 1. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner Mr. Rajendra Singh. 2. This writ application has been filed challenging the order dated 6.2.2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in registration no. O.A. 607 of 2000. By the impugned order the Central Administrative Tribunal declined to interfere with an order which, according to the petitioners, is an order of his transfer. 3. The petitioner was posted as a Parcel Clerk (Vishramdata) at Gaya. On a representation being made by respondent no. 5, who earlier held that post, the petitioner was posted as Parcel Clerk and the respondent no. 5 was posted as Parcel Clerk (Vishramdata). 4. It may be noted that this change of posting does not in any way affect the petitioner as incumbents of both the posts function in the same room, they receive the same salary and the same allowances. 5. On behalf of the petitioner an apprehension was expressed that the post of Parcel Clerk (Vishramdata) should have gone to the senior person in the cadre. In support of the submission reliance was placed on a letter dated 24.7.2000 written by CS (P) Staff/Gaya/2000 to the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager Eastern Railway, Mughalsarai. In this letter, there is no rule cited but there is only such a suggestion. 6. In the facts of this case, as the posting has been assigned on the ground of administrative exigency, it is clear and evident that the posting of the petitioner as Parcel Clerk will not compromise his seniority in the cadre. 7. On hearing learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Rajendra Singh and on going through the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has exercised its discretion property and there is no ground for any interference with the order passed by the Tribunal. 8. Thus, we find no merit in this application and, accordingly, it is dismissed.