JUDGMENT : Jayant Patel, J. The present petition is directed against the order dated 07.11.2016 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for the sake of brevity), whereby the Tribunal for the reasons recorded in the order had dismissed the application. 2. The principal grievance on the part of the Petitioner's initially was that in spite of the specific observations made by this Court in its earlier decision dated 16.09.2016 in W.P.No.48499/2016, the Petitioner's was lifted for the purpose of transfer from the place where he was working but no posting orders were passed. It was also submitted that the aforesaid was brought to the notice of the Tribunal, but in spite of the same, the Tribunal failed to consider the said aspects keeping in view the spirit of the order passed by this Court dated 16.09.2016 in the above referred matter and hence the present petition. 3. We have heard Mr. Shashikiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Javid Hussain, learned Counsel for the Petitioner's, Mr. Madhusudhan R. Naik, learned Advocate General for respondent No.1 and Mr. S.V. Narasimhan, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 4. We may record that this Court in the above referred order dated 16.09.2016 at paragraph-6 had observed thus: “6. There are two serious infirmities in the transfer order. One is that when the Petitioner's is transferred from the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest, there is no clear posting order at a particular post of the Petitioner's. Unless the Petitioner's is lifted from one place and posted at another place, it cannot be said that any vacancy has arisen of the Petitioner's and such an exercise of the power cannot be appreciated even if one keeps in mind the administrative circumstances for the public interest as the case may be. It is hardly required to be stated that when "A' is posted in place of "B' from one place to another then only there will be a vacancy of "A' and "B' can be posted at the place of "A'. It is hardly required to be stated that when "A' is posted in place of "B' from one place to another then only there will be a vacancy of "A' and "B' can be posted at the place of "A'. If "A' is lifted and his posting is kept in lurch and "B' is posted vice-A such practise cannot be appreciated and deserves to be rather deprecated and the reason being that the officer who is lifted from one place is not certain at which place he has to join the duty and unless he joins the duty at different place, it cannot be said that vacancy in law had arisen at his original place. So long as there is no vacancy at the original place, the question of posting is without any foundation. Hence, the said transfer order can be said to be with the exercise of legal mala fide.” 5. Thereafter this Court while allowing the petition had also observed at paragraph-12 in the said decision which reads as under: "12. Before parting with, we would find it appropriate to observe that in number of cases it is found by this Court that the transfer order is passed in a manner that one Officer is lifted from one post but it is not clarified about his next posting and he is expected to approach before the concerned Department for appropriate posting and another Officer vice him is already posted. This practise would keep the Officer in lurch about his next posting even he is to be transferred. Such practise is deprecated by the Court in this matter as well as in other matters. A reference may be made to the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 39438/2016 disposed of on 19.08.2016 and W.P.No.43919/2016 disposed of on 23.08. 2016. Hence, in order to ensure that appropriate mechanism is worked out, the registry shall forward the copy of the order to the Chief Secretary of the State Government to look into the matter and to take suitable action." 6. Pending the present petition, the posting order of the Petitioner's was already made. 2016. Hence, in order to ensure that appropriate mechanism is worked out, the registry shall forward the copy of the order to the Chief Secretary of the State Government to look into the matter and to take suitable action." 6. Pending the present petition, the posting order of the Petitioner's was already made. However, the fact remained that without appropriate posting of the Petitioner's, the transfer order was passed coupled with the aspects that as per the observations made by this Court in the earlier order, no transfer order could have been passed without appropriate posting of the Officer who is lifted from the place he is working. 7. We had passed the order on 13.01.2017 in the present proceeding as under: "We would have considered the matter for getting the report from the Chief Secretary to the State Government for compliance of the observations made by this Court at para 12 in the order dated 16th September, 2016. However, Mr. D. Nagaraj, learned Additional Government Advocate states that he will furnish the information and report to the Court on 20.1.2017. Hence, list on 20.1.2017." 8. Thereafter the learned Advocate General had tendered the memo of draft circular and this Court on 06.02.2017 had passed the following order: "In response to the earlier order passed by this Court, learned Advocate General has tendered the memo with the draft Circular and he further submitted that after getting views of the Court on the said draft Circular, he may be permitted to get the instructions from the Government and thereafter, he may be in a position to give either the present draft Circular or with modification or otherwise. Learned Advocate General prays for time. Put up on 27.02.2017." 9. Today the matter is once again taken up for hearing. The learned Advocate General has tendered the memo, whereby the draft two Circulars, one comprising of three instructions and another for adding proviso to paragraph-5 of the main transfer policy and guidelines dated 07.06.2013 are tendered. It has been further stated by the learned Advocate General during the course of hearing that since the amendment in the transfer policy is to be approved by the Cabinet, some time may be required for putting into action. 10. It has been further stated by the learned Advocate General during the course of hearing that since the amendment in the transfer policy is to be approved by the Cabinet, some time may be required for putting into action. 10. Under the circumstances, we direct the State Government to issue the Circular as well as to carry out appropriate amendment as suggested in the second Circular within a period of four weeks from today. 11. If the Circular for the instructions is issued as well as the amendment is carried out in the transfer policy, the possibility of not giving posting to the Officer who is lifted for the purpose of transfer would not ensue except for the purpose of meeting with the clause for premature transfer wherein the approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister is required. But since it has been suggested that the necessary amendment is also to be made in the transfer policy, the aforesaid aspect shall also be taken care of. 12. We do not propose to make any final observation on this aspect at this stage. But suffice it to observe that in appropriate case if required, the Court may examine the other incidental and consequential aspects in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of accordingly.