Judgment 1. This petition has been filed impugning certain orders of the railway administration and Central Administrative Tribunal. These are in two sets. In the first set the orders are dated 29 August, 2002 passed by the General Manager, North Eastern Railways, Gorakhpur, respondent no. 2, the order dated 2 September, 2002 passed by the Railway Recruitment Board, Muzaffarpur, respondent no. 4 and the order dated 31 July, 2002 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench. The next order challenged is dated 25 October, 2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench on O.A. No. 747 of 2002. 2. Ultimately, it is the order of 25 October, 2002 which basically affects the proceedings which have engaged the attention of the tribunal. 3. The issue basically is of down loading the work load and an arrangement of filling up posts on repatriation. The posts upon repatriation are five. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that his repatriation, otherwise, may be taken as a transfer which was malafide and this aspect had not been seen by the tribunal. On the contrary, these are noticed by the tribunal itself. In so far as the matter of surrendering of posts is concerned and consequential repatriation on transfer, the tribunal has recorded that the petitioner has not even laid a challenge on this aspect. This part of the objection is noted in paragraph 15 of the tribunals order. Then comes the aspect of mala fide in reference to the selection of Assistant Station Master (ASM). In this context learned counsel points out to Annexure 11 to the petition. This aspect is noticed in paragraph 17 of the order of the tribunal. The petitioner has laid emphasis and this matter has been submitted before this Court also with much emphasis that the petitioner had made certain notings on the notesheet of the department record to record objection on the manner in which repatriation and/or transfers were being taken. While dealing with this aspect the tribunal sent for the original record and came to the conclusion that the grounds built up to allege malafides are conspicuous by their absence. 5. In the circumstances, the foundation of malafide having not been fortified by the petitioner so as to be considered by the tribunal, the claim or allegation that he was being transferred for a cause, the basis was absent. 5. In the circumstances, the foundation of malafide having not been fortified by the petitioner so as to be considered by the tribunal, the claim or allegation that he was being transferred for a cause, the basis was absent. Before this Court a decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and Ors. V/s. Rajendra Sareen. Particularly a reference was made to paragraph 47 of the judgment of the Supreme Court. The aspect that foundation for mala fide had not been laid and the record does not bear out in the present case, the judgment of the Supreme Court does not apply and the two decisions of the Supreme Court noticed by the tribunal apply. 6. In the circumstances, in the restructuring which has been done by the administration of the railway the Court is not inclined to interfere. 7. Dismissed.