JUDGMENT 1.With consent heard finally. This order shall govern disposal of sixteen writ appeals, as according to counsel for the parties, the facts and question of law are identical in all these cases. 2. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from Vivekanand Jalodiya vs. State of MP & Others, Writ Appeal No. 641 of 2014. This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 16.05.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3734 of 2014. 3. Challenging the order dated 03.05.2014 allotting/transferring the petitioner's services to other district, the petitioner had filed the aforesaid writ petition. The case of the writ petitioner was that in the earlier round of litigation, on a writ petition being filed, direction was issued to the State Government to take a decision on absorption of the services of the petitioner, and with a further direction to maintain status quo till process of absorption is completed. However, without taking the decision in regard to the absorption in terms of the order passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, the impugned order was passed by the respondents allotting/transferring the services from Indore to other district. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the aforesaid writ petition was filed, in which though notices were issued to the respondents, but thereafter, the writ petition was dismissed without reply being filed by the respondents by observing that it is the discretion of the respondents to post the petitioner as well as other identically placed persons only where the posts are vacant or available. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that apart from the other questions, the question, which was required to be decided by the learned Single Judge, was as to whether, the services of the appellant/writ petitioner, who was a contractual employee, could have been transferred to a different district. Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Deputy Government Advocate submits that had an opportunity to file reply in the writ petition been given to the respondents, they would have justified the action. 5. In this appeal, while issuing notice to the respondent/State, this Court stayed the operation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge by directing that the appellant shall be allowed to continue at the present place of posting till the next date of hearing. 6. 5. In this appeal, while issuing notice to the respondent/State, this Court stayed the operation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge by directing that the appellant shall be allowed to continue at the present place of posting till the next date of hearing. 6. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, it has been prayed by the learned counsel for the parties that as the writ petition has been decided without answering the relevant question and without there being reply of the State, this writ appeal may be disposed of by directing the Writ Court to decide the writ petition afresh, after the reply of the petition being filed by the respondent/State. 7. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the question, as aforesaid, requires consideration by the Writ Court, we deem it proper to dispose of this writ appeal as also the connected writ appeals by directing that the interim order passed by this Court will continue for a period of four weeks. The respondent/State to file reply to the writ petition and all other connected writ petitions within two weeks. The orders passed in Writ Petition No. 3734 of 2014 and all connected writ petitions are set aside. All the writ petitions be listed before appropriate bench on 02.09.2014, for fresh decision. 8. Needless to say that the Writ Court would consider and decide the prayer for interim relief/writ petition itself afresh, uninfluenced by this order and any observations made herein above. With the aforesaid direction, the writ appeals stand disposed of.