Judgment :- 1. Petitioner is questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 26.03.2009 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, in Application No. 259/2009, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the application filed by respondent No.4 setting aside the order of transfer posting the petitioner herein as Sheristedar, Prevention of Unauthorized Constructions, in place of respondent No.4 and transferring respondent No.4 to the place of the petitioner, where she was working as Sheristedar in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District. 2. According to the petition averments, petitioner joined the services in the year 1988 as Stenographer in the office of the Divisional Commissioner, Gulbarga Division, Gulbarga and she was promoted in the year 1999 as Sheristedar and posted to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Raichur. In the year 2001, she was transferred as Manager, Directorate of Schedule Tribe. In the year 2003, petitioner was posted to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District as Sheristedar. Thereafter, she was posted as Revenue Head Munshi in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District. 3. By the Official Memorandum dated 15.01.2009, petitioner has been transferred and posted to the place of respondent No.4, which office is about half a kilometer away from this High Court. The distance between the office where the petitioner and respondent No.4 were working is not even 2 Kilometers away from each other. Challenging the order of transfer transferring the petitioner to the post of respondent No.4, respondent No.4 approached the Tribunal in Application No.259/2009 alleging malafides. The Tribunal has allowed the application and set aside the order of transfer on the ground that the order of transfer of the petitioner to the post of respondent No.4 is premature and contrary to the transfer guidelines. This order is called in question in this writ petition. 4. It would be appropriate for us to refer to the case of respondent No.4 also. Respondent No.4 has been working in Bangalore City since 19.04.2000. According to the petition averments, respondent No.4 was initially working in the office of the Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore, as First Division Assistant with effect from 19.04.2000 and on 06.03.2003, he was posted as First Division Assistant in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, and he continued to work in the same office even after he was promoted as Sheristedar by order dated 18.10.2008. In other words, respondent No.4 is working in the same building and in the same office since 19.04.2000. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.4 has been continued to work in the same office even after promotion without disturbing him. According to the petitioner, the order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous and that the order of transfer transferring the petitioner to the post of respondent No.4 cannot be considered as malafide. 6. This Court on an earlier occasion having heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and having observed that hundreds of Government servants are filing applications before the Tribunal as well as before this Court challenging the order of transfer on various grounds with an intention to get a particular post and considering the facts of this case wherein the two officials were fighting for a particular post, had orally directed the Government Advocate to consider shifting both of them to other places. Since many Government officials are either before this Court or before the Tribunal challenging the order of transfer and this Court felt that such officials were not interested in discharging their duties but were only interested in approaching the Court challenging the orders of transfer for the reasons best known to them and having regard to several other such cases, we had directed the Government Advocate to shift both the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 from out of Bangalore as each of them are quarreling for a particular post even though both of them are working in Bangalore at a distance of 1 ½ kilometer from one building to another building. Learned Government Advocate has produced the order dated 29.07.2010 transferring the petitioner to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, and respondent No.4 as Sheristedar, Bangarpet Taluk Office, Kolar District. 7. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Subba Rao contends that the order of transfer transferring the petitioner to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, would cause hardship to his client. If any hardship is caused to his client, she has to blame herself and she cannot blame the Government or this Court. If really there is any hardship caused to her, it is open for the petitioner to approach the Government with a representation to consider her case for transfer to any other convenient place. 8. Similarly, learned Senior Counsel Mr. If really there is any hardship caused to her, it is open for the petitioner to approach the Government with a representation to consider her case for transfer to any other convenient place. 8. Similarly, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Ravivarma Kumar submits that on account of the petitioner’s act in getting an order of transfer to the place of respondent No.4, his client respondent No.4 is being made to suffer for no fault on his part. Therefore, he prays to consider the case of respondent No.4. We have already noticed above that this respondent is working in the same office from 19.04.2000. He has continued to work there even after his promotion as Sheristedar on 18.10.2008. We are unable to appreciate how he is affected by his posting to another office situated at distance of less than 2 Kms., from the present one. Since the order of transfer dated 29.07.2010 has already been passed by the Government, respondent No.4 can also approach the Government seeking to consider his case for transfer to any other convenient place. As the order of transfer dated 29.07.2010 has been effected on the directions of this Court and when this Court has particularly ordered to shift the parties from out of Bangalore on account of their attitude in fighting for a posting to a particular post, we refrain from making any further comment on their conduct. 9. In the background of some of the Government servants indulging in such a race, it is high time for the Government to strictly adhere to the transfer policy in the larger interest of general public and in the interest of public administration. If the transfer guidelines are strictly complied by the Government it will, to a large extent insulate against the unfair and arbitrary manner or method in which frequent transfers are resorted to. It is not out of place here to notice that in large number of cases where transfers are effected frequently, considerations of administrative needs, of fairness to the employees by adopting uniform methods excluding extraneous interference are sacrificed. As a result an employee who can wield influence can get the posting of his choice at the cost of the other who may not be able to match him. The ultimate casualty is the efficiency in public service. As a result an employee who can wield influence can get the posting of his choice at the cost of the other who may not be able to match him. The ultimate casualty is the efficiency in public service. It is in this background, disturbed by the innumerable instances where such transfers are effected, many times, at the instance of overzealous officials wanting to occupy particular posts for their own reasons, we had expressed our displeasure over such repeated occurrences and with an intention to send a message to such officials and also to the authorities we had called upon the Government to shift both these officials to some other place. Pursuant to the said direction the Government now passed the order. 10. Expressing our fond hope that the authorities will strictly follow the guidelines framed so as to ensure efficiency and stability in the service, security and fairness to the employees giving no room for extraneous factors in effecting the transfers, we dispose of this writ petition as no other direction is necessary in view of the transfer order passed by the Government on 29.7.2010. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner and the 4th respondent to make necessary representations to the competent authorities regarding their inconvenience and hardship.