JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, C.J. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the transfer order dated 16/8/2016 issued by Chief Development Officer, Nainital.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner, to cut a long version of facts short, was transferred in the year 2014 on the post of Khand Vikas Adhikari, Block Dhari, District Nainital. He has a clear and impeccable tenure. While serving so, the D.D.O. called upon the Assistant Engineer regarding inquiry in the irregularities committed in the construction work. Pursuant to the letter, petitioner presented himself before the D.D.O. The D.D.O., however, called the petitioner on his mobile at about 10:20 a.m. and directed the petitioner to telephonically contact him. Petitioner, being junior, immediately complied with the oral orders and he was orally informed that there was pressure upon the D.D.O. to transfer him on administrative ground and it is stated that the petitioner was pressurized to write a letter seeking transfer to any other Vikas Khand in the District on personal grounds. Petitioner succumbed to the pressure and he wrote letter accordingly. Further, there is a case of mala fide; in that, it is stated that the plan was to get the petitioner transferred, so that the fifth respondent, favourite of the D.D.O., could be accommodated at Dhari. Reliance is placed on the Government Order dated 12th July, 2016, as per which, the beginning of zero session was marked, in which no transfers are permitted. It is breaching the said order that the petitioner stands transferred. Equally violated is another Government Order dated 10th June, 2008, as per which, in case there is no person available, the senior-most Assistant Block Development Officer must be posted. 3. Learned Brief Holder would submit that actually, the transfer was on the request of the petitioner and also that, four persons, who were senior to respondent no. 5, refused and, in such circumstances, the fifth respondent was brought. 4. In such circumstances, we are of the view that, in the interest of justice, we need not go into these issues. Instead, we should permit the petitioner to represent his grievance before the second respondent. 5, refused and, in such circumstances, the fifth respondent was brought. 4. In such circumstances, we are of the view that, in the interest of justice, we need not go into these issues. Instead, we should permit the petitioner to represent his grievance before the second respondent. Accordingly, if the petitioner represents before the second respondent within a period of one week from today, the second respondent shall take a decision thereon within a period of ten days from the date of filing of such representation along with certified copy of this judgment. We leave open all the contentions of the petitioner. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.