Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. In this writ application, prayer of the petitioner is to quash the order dated 19-5-2003 (Annexure-9) whereby the petitioner has been transferred to Bazar Samiti Warsaliganj on administrative ground. 2. Petitioner is a Packer and by order dated 19-3-2002 (Annexure-1) he was relieved from the office of the Regional Director, Agriculture Marketing Board. Muzaffarpur, w.e.f. the after-noon of 19-3-2002 to join at the Headquarter of Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board, Patna, hereinafter referred to as the Board. In pursuance of the said order, petitioner submitted his joining at the Boards Headquarter on 21-3-2002. However, by order dated 27-3-2002 (Annexure-3), his service was returned to the office of the Regional Director, Muzaffarpur for his posting in the market Committee. Petitioner challenged the said order by filing C.W.J.C. No. 4485 of 2002 Mohan Raut V/s. The Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board and others, before this Court. This Court by interim order dated 8-4-2002 stayed the operation of the order dated 27-3-2002. In the light of the interim order of this Court, the Board by order dated 20-4-2002 (Annexure-4) accepted the joining of the petitioner at the Boards Headquarter. Further, by order dated 9-7-2002 (Annexure-5), the order dated 27-3-2002 was rescinded and it was directed that the petitioner shall be posted at the Headquarter till further orders. After the said order, when the writ application was taken up for consideration, a statement was made that the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed. Taking note of the aforesaid statement, this Court dismissed the writ application as withdrawn. 3. It seems that the petitioner by memo dated 30-8-2002 was suspended but later on by memo dated 2-5-2003, the order of suspension was revoked and it was directed that the salary for the period of suspension shall be decided after the decision in the criminal case. Thereafter by the impugned order dated 19-5-2003, petitioner has been transferred to the Market Committee, Warisaliganj. 4. It is the stand of the petitioner that he is a Class IV employee whereas the respondents in the counter-affidavit, have stated that the petitioner is a Packer and belongs to the Boards cadre. In the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that there are only two posts of Packer at the Boards Headquarter and those posts being already occupied. 4. It is the stand of the petitioner that he is a Class IV employee whereas the respondents in the counter-affidavit, have stated that the petitioner is a Packer and belongs to the Boards cadre. In the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that there are only two posts of Packer at the Boards Headquarter and those posts being already occupied. It was not possible to retain the petitioner at the Headquarter and, therefore, transferred and adjusted against the post of Class IV grade employee belonging to different cadre than that of the Packer. It has been pointed out that on account of administrative exigency, i.e. no-existence of the post of Packer at the Headquarter, the petitioner has been transferred to Warisaliganj. 5. Mr. Jai Prakash Verma, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that although in the order impugned, it has been stated that the petitioner has been transferred on administrative ground but in fact, no administrative ground exists. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have stated the reason for transfer of the petitioner, i.e. non-availability of post at the Boards Headquarter. In view of aforesaid, the plea of the petitioner that he has been transferred without any administrative exigency, is unfounded on fact. 6. Mr. Verma then submits that before transferring the petitioner, the matter was not placed before the Establishment Committee and as such, the order of transfer is fit to be quashed on this ground alone. Reliance has been placed on a division bench order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10304 of 1993, Meghnath Singh V/s. The Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board and Ors., and my attention has been drawn to the following passage from the said order. "In view of the fact that the petitioners case of transfer has not been recommended by the Establishment Committee, this application is allowed and the impugned order as contained in Annexure 7 to this writ application is quashed." 7. Mr. B.K. Singh Chauhan appearing on behalf of the respondent Board concedes that the matter of transfer of the petitioner was not placed before the Establishment Committee but contends that the petitioners transfer having been made in administrative exigency, it was not expedient to place the matter before the Establishment Committee. Mr. B.K. Singh Chauhan appearing on behalf of the respondent Board concedes that the matter of transfer of the petitioner was not placed before the Establishment Committee but contends that the petitioners transfer having been made in administrative exigency, it was not expedient to place the matter before the Establishment Committee. He points out that on account of non-availability of the post at the Headquarter, the Managing Director of the Board had to make an exercise for accommodating the surplus packers and in the said exercise, petitioner has been transferred to Warisaliganj. In such a situation, Mr. Chauhan points out that the order of transfer of the petitioner is not vitiated. 8. On consideration of the rival submissions, I do not find any substance in the submission of Sri Verma. The respondents have averred in the counter-affidavit that at the Headquarter where the petitioner was posted as Packer, there were two posts of packers and they are already occupied and in order to accommodate him, he was transferred to Warisaliganj. This assertion of the respondents has not been denied by the petitioner and in that view of the matter, the transfer of the petitioner has been effected on administrative exigency. That being the position, in the peculiar facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the order of transfer shall be rendered illegal only on the ground that it was not placed before the Establishment Committee. In the case of Meghnath Singh (supra) on which Shri Verma has placed reliance, there was no administrative exigency and in that context, the order of transfer was held to be bad. This would be evidence from the following passage from the said order. "The petitioners case, admittedly, had not been placed before the Establishment Committee nor any administrative exigency has been stated in the impugned order." 9. Here, in the present case, in impugned order, it has been clearly stated that the transfer of the petitioner has been made on administrative exigency, which has been explained in the counter-affidavit. 10. Mr. Chauhan assures me that the petitioner shall be allowed to join at Warialiganj. Let it be done. 11. Application stands dismissed with the observation aforesaid. No costs.