JUDGMENT By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 18.6.2002 (Annexure-P/3) passed by the Respondent No.3, by which the petitioner has been transferred in the same capacity from Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (AKVN), Bhopal to AKVN, Gwalior on deputation. The Respondent No.3 M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (MPSIDC) is a body corporate registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It has been constituted to provide industrial infrastructure to the upcoming industrial unit in the State of Madhya Pradesh through its subordinate organisations AKVNs located at various places. Each AKVN is also a registered body corporate constituted under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The purpose and object of the constitution of AKVN is to provide developed industrial plots to the industries established within its territorial area. It is not disputed that right from the beginning the petitioner is the employee of the Respondent No. 1 AKVN, Bhopal. He was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Manager in the year 1988 and was later promoted to the post of Deputy Manager. The case of the petitioner is that since a person from one AKVN can be sent to another AKVN only on deputation as the transfer entails change of employer, such deputation cannot be without the express consent of the employee. According to the petitioner, since no consent was taken from him for his deputation to another AKVN, the order deserves to be quashed. The Respondents have filed an application for vacating the stay order which has been adopted by them in the Return. According to the application of the Respondents, MPSIDC is the Principal Body and as per the Employees Service Rules, 1995, it has the power to transfer an employee from one AKVN to any other AKVN. It is, however, not disputed by the Respondents that MPSIDC as also the various AKVN are all corporate bodies and, therefore, separate autonomous bodies. Learned counsel for the Respondents has referred to Employees Service Rules, 1995 (Annexure-R-112) and invited attention to Rule 10 thereof. Rule 10 provides that the Managing Director of the MPSIDC shall have the power to transfer an employee from one Corporation (AKVN) to another Corporation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in General Officer Commanding-in-Chief an another v. Dr. Rule 10 provides that the Managing Director of the MPSIDC shall have the power to transfer an employee from one Corporation (AKVN) to another Corporation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in General Officer Commanding-in-Chief an another v. Dr. Subhash Chandra Yadav and another ( AIR 1988 SC 876 ) and also to the decision in lawaharlal Nehru University v. Dr. K.S. lawatkarand others [1989 Supp (1) SCC 679] and submitted that transfer of the petitioner cannot be made without his consent as it amounts to placing the petitioner under a different employer. While it is true that Rule 10 grants power to the Managing Director of MPSIDC to transfer an employee from one Corporation to another, there is nothing in the Rule which suggests that the requirement of obtaining the consent of the employee for his deputation to another Corporation stands dispensed with. The provision merely enables the. Managing Director to transfer an employee but that power cannot, in the absence of a specific legal provision in this behalf, be exercised by the Managing Director to place an employee under a different employer without his consent. As observed by the Supreme Court in lawaharlal Nehru University (supra), no employee could be transferred without his consent from one employer to another. Similarly, in view of the decision in GOC-in-Chiej v. Subhash Chandra (supra), each AKVN being a separate corporate body employees of one AKVN cannot be transferred to another in the absence of a centralised service for all such bodies. Since in the present case the effect of Annexure-P/3 is the transfer of the petitioner from one employer to another for which the consent of the petitioner has not been obtained, the order cannot be sustained. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order Annexure-P/3 is quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.