( 1 ) THIS petition is filed challenging Annexure-A dated 21. 9. 2002. Petitioner is working as an Assistant Executive Engineer in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. , (for short KPTCL ). His services were lent to the second respondent on deputation. He is working as technical assistant to the Superintending Engineer, Directorate of Agricultural Marketing Department, Bangalore. In terms of the order dated 1. 9. 2002 his deputation was continued for a period of one year Annexure-B. KPTCL took a decision to withdraw the services of the deputationists in terms of Annexure-C. According to the petitioner, now annexure-A is issued tot his detriment. The petitioner is challenging annexure-A on various grounds. ( 2 ) RESPONDENTS have entered appearance. Contesting respondent No. 3 has filed an affidavit. He wants the petition to be dismissed. He has also filed objections to the maim petition. It is stated there in that no case is made out for my interference. It is further stated that the petitioner does not have any right to continue in the same post. KPTCL has also entered appearance. ( 3 ) THE Government has made available to me the file pertaining to this case. Heard the counsel for final disposal with their consent. ( 4 ) SRI Ravikumar, learned counsel argues at great length to say that his client has made out a case. His further argument is that a deputationist cannot be called back before completion of his deputation period. He states that a case of legal malafide is made out. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that just because the third respondent happens to be a son-in-law of a sitting minister that by itself cannot be a ground to challenge the order in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 5 ) SRI B. S. Patil, learned counsel for the Board, took me through the pleadings to contend that the petitioner has no right to continue in the deputed place and according to him the parent department can recall the deputationist. ( 6 ) IN the light of the arguments of the learned counsel, I have carefully perused the material on record. ( 7 ) IT is seen from the material on record that the petitioner was sent on deputation to the Agricultural Department. His period came to an end after three years on 30. 4. 2000. ( 6 ) IN the light of the arguments of the learned counsel, I have carefully perused the material on record. ( 7 ) IT is seen from the material on record that the petitioner was sent on deputation to the Agricultural Department. His period came to an end after three years on 30. 4. 2000. An extension was sought for and it was extended for a period of one year from 1. 5. 2002 to 1. 5. 2003 in terms of the order dated 1. 7. 2002. It is also seen from a communication dated 16. 9. 2002 issued by the KPTCL with regard to recalling the deputationist to the parent department in terms of an order dated 16. 9. 2002. There after on 21. 9. 2002, the petitioner is recalled to his parent department and in his place the third respondent is sent on deputation. From a reading of the material on record what is clear to me is that during the currency of his deputation period, petitioner is being recalled and simultaneously third respondent is sent to his place. This in my view runs counter to the decision taken in terms of annexure-C dated 16. 9. 2002. No body can have a quarrel with regard to the intention of the KPTCL in recalling its officer for better performance and better efficiency, but in the guise of the same, the Board cannot recall one officer and replace him by another officer by way of deputation. This indicates arbitrariness and the said decision runs counter to decision at annexure-C. In fact, in annexure-C the Board has written to the Agricultural Marketing Directorate that if they need any officials on deputation, the KPTCL may not be in a position to depute and instead the department can consider deputation from NGEF,kvk, MLW, and MEI. Having taken this sound decision, issuing letter at Annexure-A and asking the petitioner to come and directing the third respondent to go to the agricultural department is contrary to the decision in terms of annexure-C. In these circumstances, without going into the controversy as to whether the deputationist can be recalled during the deputation period and without going into the question of malafides, I deem it proper to set aside annexure-A on the peculiar facts of this case. Though the allegations and counter allegations are made by the parties I am not giving any findings in the case on hand in the light of my discussion in the earlier paragraphs with regard to un sustainability of Annexure-A in terms of Annexure-C. At the same time, I cannot but express my disturbed feeling while looking into the material on record. File reveals intervention of the sitting Ministers. Time has come for this court to remind those in power not to interfere in the day-to-day administration in the larger interest of maintaining independency and efficiency of KPTCL. I am not expressing any opinion with regard to the right of transfer in the absence of any factual foundation and pleadings except expressing anquish over the way in which things are happening in KPTCL, at the instance of the Ministers in the case on hand. I do hope that in the days to come such interference is avoided in the interest of better efficiency of a public body. ( 8 ) HAVING held that annexure-A is unsustainable in law, I have no option to set aside the same. At the same time, I deem it proper to reserve liberty to the respondent to take any appropriate decision as is permissible in law and in accordance with law. ( 9 ) IN the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A is set aside with liberty. Parties are directed to bear their respective costs. --- *** --- .