JUDGMENT : A.S. Bopanna, J. The petitioners in all these petitions are before this Court assailing the separate orders passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal ('KSAT' for short) whereby the applications filed by each of these petitioners assailing the order dated 02.04.2018 whereunder these petitioners were transferred was not interfered and the applications were disposed of with liberty to seek for retransfer by making a representation. Presently the grievance is also that such representations have not received favourable consideration at the hands of the respondent and as such a consideration of the very validity of transfer order to remain in force after the conclusion of the General Elections to the State Assembly is sought in these petitions. 2. The petition in W.P.No.31053/2018 is taken as the lead case for the purpose of noticing the pleadings of the rival parties. The petitioner joined the service in the Department of Excise on 10.11.2011 and was promoted as Inspector of Excise with effect from 30.07.2016. On 08.08.2017 he was transferred from CSD Bonded Warehouse Canteen to K.R. Puram Range, Bengaluru. The petitioner refers to the Transfer Guidelines dated 07.06.2013 issued by the State Government to contend that minimum tenure in a place for Group C post to which the petitioner belongs is four years, which period had not been completed in his last posting. However, since the General Elections to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly was stated to be held in the month of May 2018, the Election Commission issued a notification dated 17.01.2018 with various directions relating to posting of officers for the purpose of conducting of general elections during the election process. The shifting included the officers who have spent three years in a post, which was not the same period as the minimum tenure contemplated in the Transfer Guidelines of the State Government and it also provided not to post in the native district of the Officer concerned. The same was only to enable the free and fair conduct of elections. The Excise Department had not implemented the directions and as such a communication dated 21.03.2018 was addressed to the Chief Secretary, pursuant to which the Official Memorandum dated 02.04.2018 was issued whereby transfers were effected to comply with the directions of the Election Commission. 3. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the transfer order dated 02.04.2018 was before the KSAT in Application No.2481/2018. 3. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the transfer order dated 02.04.2018 was before the KSAT in Application No.2481/2018. The KSAT though had taken note of the contention, on behalf of the petitioner, had also taken into consideration the contention of the learned Government pleader that the election being over, appropriate action would be taken and as such the KSAT had disposed of the application permitting the petitioner to make a representation. While doing so, the KSAT had also observed that the transfer in issue being due to election to State Assembly, the application is premature. Since the consideration thereof on merits had not been made, the instant petition is filed and in the meanwhile since the representation is rejected, grievance is also raised in that regard. 4. Similar is the case in respect of the remaining petitioners on the factual and legal aspects but with minor variation relating to service particulars. However the applications filed before the KSAT are different and the orders passed therein are different. 5. The official respondents have filed their statement of objections seeking to resist the claim of the petitioners. The different places in which the petitioner had worked in Bangalore from the year 2012 is referred but it is not disputed that the same was in different capacities in the different offices and the last posting of the petitioner was in the office of the Excise Commissioner from 11.08.2017 to 03.04.2018. The Official Memorandum dated 02.04.2018 whereunder 169 Excise Inspectors were transferred is sought to be contended as general transfer, in public interest and in view of administrative exigencies. It is contended that the said order is after obtaining necessary concurrence from the Election Commission of India as required under the Election Code of Conduct and the guidelines issued by the Election Commission on 17.01.2018 is also referred. The claim of the petitioner that his transfer before completion of the period of four years being Group C Officer and the same contended to be premature is disputed. Since the transfer was as per the directions of the Election Commission, it did not require the approval of the Chief Minister even if it is premature, is the contention. The claim of the petitioner that his transfer before completion of the period of four years being Group C Officer and the same contended to be premature is disputed. Since the transfer was as per the directions of the Election Commission, it did not require the approval of the Chief Minister even if it is premature, is the contention. The contention as put forth on behalf of the petitioner that the transfer during elections is to be considered as deputation as held by this Court is sought to be disputed and it is contended that the facts herein are not similar and that the guidelines dated 17.01.2018 does not provide for any reversion after the election process. 6. In that light essentially, the contention is that the transfer is made in the regular course and not only for the purpose of conduct of elections and the deputation is not made by the Election Commission nor has the Election Commission specified the officers to be transferred but has only issued the general guidelines. In view of the petitioners relying on the subsequent orders passed by the respondent rejecting the representation and also the nature of consideration to be made after the process of election, the official respondents have filed the additional objection statement whereby they have not only reiterated the contentions put forth in the objection statement but also seek to contend that the petitioners themselves are not sure of their case. It is further sought to be pointed out that the transfer as made is not merely that of the petitioners and the person posted to their place or viceversa but the power exercised by the Government was to transfer more than 500 officers who have reported to duty in their place of posting. It is further sought to be contended that the transfer orders have also been made so as to comply the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.K.Pavithra. As an instance it is pointed out that respondent No.3 in W.P.No.33103/2018 was demoted on 17.04.2018 from the position of Deputy Superintendent of Excise working at Sakleshpur, to the post of Excise Inspector and posted to the place of the petitioner in that writ petition. In that regard in view of the status-quo as ordered, the posting is also required to be maintained is the contention. In that regard in view of the status-quo as ordered, the posting is also required to be maintained is the contention. The official respondents seek to suggest that the petitioners in W.P.Nos.31054/2018 & 31052/2018 may not be interested in pursuing the prayer since their postings are made with the approval of the Chief Minister. In that view, the official respondents seek dismissal of these petitions. 7. The private respondent in W.P.No.31053/2018 has filed the statement of objections resisting the claim of the petitioners and the same is adopted in the other petitions. The contention essentially is that the impugned order dated 02.04.2018 under which the transfers were effected is of 169 Excise Inspectors which is a general transfer, in public interest. It is contended that since such general transfer has been made, the private respondent has reported at that place and also made all arrangements for his family. It is also contended that the Officers involved in these petitions do not come under the purview of Article 324 of the Constitution of India and as such the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Election Commission of India holding it as deputation in the facts and circumstances of that case would not apply to the present facts. Similar is the contention by the private respondents in the other connected petitions as well. Hence, they seek dismissal of these petitions. 8. In the background of the rival pleadings we have heard Sri.P.S.Rajgopal, learned Senior counsel and Sri.Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior counsel appearing along with the respective counsel on record in respect of the writ petitions wherein they represent. We have also heard Sri. I.Tharanath Poojary, learned Government Advocate for the official respondents and Sri.Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior counsel who appeared along with the counsel on record for the private respondents. In that light we have also perused the petition papers. 9. At the outset, it is necessary to take note of the preamble of the transfer order dated 02.04.2018 (Annexure-A6) through which the petitioners and the others were transferred prior to the Elections to the Karnataka State General Assembly. In order to take note of the process under which it was initiated it is appropriate to extract the preamble i.e., subject and the references which is contained therein: IMAGE OTHER LANGUAGE 10. In order to take note of the process under which it was initiated it is appropriate to extract the preamble i.e., subject and the references which is contained therein: IMAGE OTHER LANGUAGE 10. In that background, the matter is to be appreciated taking note of the contentions put forth by the official respondents that it is a general transfer as per the guidelines, which is disputed by the petitioners. In that regard it is seen that the order dated 02.04.2018 would refer to the subject of transferring the employees relating to the Excise Department and the reference therein is to the communication dated 17.01.2018 and 02.04.2018 issued by the Chief Election Commissioner and the Government letter dated 02.04.2018. Hence, it is necessary to take note of the contents therein so as to gather the purport and intentions. The communication dated 17.01.2018 from the Election Commission of India (Annexure-A4) is addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka and the Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka wherein certain guidelines have been issued with regard to the transfer of the Officers due to the General Elections to State Legislative Assembly. 11. The guidelines contained in the communication issued by the Election Commission of India is dehors the guidelines contained in the Government Notification dated 10.06.2013 (Annexure 'A3'), whereunder the norms including the tenure of service in a particular posting for different cadre of employees is provided. On the other hand the shifting is directed by the Election Commission if the period completed is even less than the period prescribed under the Government Notification. Hence, the guidelines of the Election Commission of India is with the object of conducting free and fair elections and is not with reference to any other aspect relating to the service conditions based on which the transfer guidelines/policy of the State Government is formulated. 12. It is further to be noticed that in a situation when the transfers had not been effected by the concerned Departments despite the guidelines issued by the Election Commission, the Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka addressed a letter dated 21.03.2018 to the Chief Secretary to Government (Annexure- C) taking exception to the attitude of the Excise Department in particular. In the said letter, it was further requested that all the Cadre Controlling Authorities should effect transfers of the officers as per the ECI guidelines and it should be in letter and spirit of the ECI guidelines. In the said letter, it was further requested that all the Cadre Controlling Authorities should effect transfers of the officers as per the ECI guidelines and it should be in letter and spirit of the ECI guidelines. It is subsequent thereto the official respondents have through their letter dated 27.03.2018 (Annexure- R2) intimated the Chief Electoral Officer about the transfer and their approval was sought. What is significant to take note is that, unlike a routine transfer order the subject and the reference therein is with regard to the transfer of Officers as per the Election Commission of India guidelines and it is not the general or routine transfer as per the transfer policy/guideline of the State Government for which the approval was sought due to the code of conduct. On the other hand, it indicates compliance of the directions of the Election Commission. On receipt of the said letter, the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer through the communication dated 02.04.2018 (Annexure- R3) has informed that the proposal has been examined and it was once again informed that the transfers are to be effected strictly as per the guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India. It is pursuant thereto the impugned transfer order dated 02.04.2018 (Annexure- A6) was issued and the subject and reference contained therein which is extracted hereinabove would expressly indicate that the transfers thereunder is as per the direction and guidelines issued by the Election Commission. 13. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has relied on the decision in the case of Election Commission of India and another vs. The State of Karnataka by its Chief Secretary and Others, (2013) ILR(Kar) 5913 wherein a Co-ordinate Bench has referred to the provision of Article 324 of the Constitution as also Section 13CC, 20A, 28A of the Representation of Peoples Act and in that circumstance the nature and scope of the orders which were in issue therein has been considered. The order dated 26.03.2013 whereunder the officers named therein were posted to the place of the applicants before the CAT was taken note and in that circumstance taking into consideration the nature of the order for the purpose of election and in that circumstance it is held that the order of transfer is in the nature of deputation and that such deputation comes to an end the moment the results of the elections are announced. It is further held that consequently the deputationists would be reverted back to the previous post held by them without any order from the Government. 14. The learned Government Advocate and the learned senior counsel for the private respondents would however refer to the said decision in detail and seek to distinguish the same by explaining the circumstance under which the said decision was rendered. The learned Government Advocate in that regard has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. -vs- Commissioner of Central Excise, (2004) 8 SCC 335 wherein it is held that the Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance was being placed. 15. Keeping all these aspects relating to factual and legal aspects in perspective, it is no doubt seen that in the cited case of Election Commission of India and another the Officers to whose place the private respondents therein were posted by the Election Commission for performing the election duty had approached the Tribunal claiming to be aggrieved and contending that it would cast a stigma. The Tribunal accepting the contention had set aside the order. The Election Commission being aggrieved by that order of the Tribunal was before this Court. This Court having taken note of Article 324 of the Constitution, the provision in the Representation of Peoples Act and in that light having taken into consideration the prerogative of the Election Commission after the declaration of the elections, had set-aside the order of the Tribunal and further on taking note that the transfer is for the purpose of election has at the instance of Election Commission termed it as deputation. 16. In that background, though the transfer order in the instant case is not limited to few officers and such posting has not been made by the Election Commission itself by naming the officers and indicating the place of posting, the entire sequence as noticed above will indicate that even though the impugned transfer order is notified by the State Government, the entire basis and the procedure followed from the inception is at the behest of the Election Commission and as per the guidelines issued by it and based on its approval. The guidelines as issued by the Election Commission was only for the purpose and with the view of conducting free and fair elections and the transfer guidelines/ policy of the State Government was not the basis nor was the transfers effected during the month of May/June as provided under the policy of the State Government so as to classify it as a general transfer. In that light, even if it cannot fit into the definition of deputation without requiring another order from the Government to re-transfer, it is only a temporary shifting of the employees as a result and for the purpose of general election wholly at the instance of the Election Commission and the necessary corollary is that they were to be reverted after the election process was complete. 17. The decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in W.P.No.53835/2013 (S-KAT) dated 16.12.2013; W.P.No.56844-845/2013 (S-KAT); W.P.No.44729/2013 (S-KAT) and W.P. No. 51571/2013(S-KAT) relied on at Annexures -D to G to W.P. No.31053/2018 herein are also cases where a similar situation arose for consideration and it was held that the transfer made for the purpose of elections will not be a general transfer and in that context, the subsequent order made for reposting after the election process being challenged by the incumbent as premature transfer has also been rejected. Above all, what cannot be ignored is also that when the petitioners in the instant cases were before the KSAT, the learned Government pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents had expressly indicated that since the election was over as on the date of order by the KSAT, the respondent No.2 would take appropriate course of action. The KSAT having accepted that position, held that the ends of justice will be served if liberty is given to make a representation to seek re-transfer to the previous place since the election is over. 18. In that circumstance, since the understanding in all quarters was that the impugned transfers were made due to elections, it is relevant to note that the official respondents have not assailed the observations contained in the orders of the KSAT which in fact would limit the scope of consideration of the representation. 18. In that circumstance, since the understanding in all quarters was that the impugned transfers were made due to elections, it is relevant to note that the official respondents have not assailed the observations contained in the orders of the KSAT which in fact would limit the scope of consideration of the representation. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners have also relied on the unofficial note dated 02.06.2018 which was circulated, whereunder the re-transfer of the officials after the election process is indicated, which is as hereunder, IMAGE OTHER LANGUAGE 19. Despite all the above said position, since the official respondents did not take a decision on the representations filed by the petitioners as observed by the KSAT, they chose to file the instant petitions wherein the official respondents for the first time have taken the contention that it is a general transfer and during the pendency of these petitions the official respondents have also rejected the representations of the petitioners indicating such reason. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners have contended that the official respondents cannot change their stand before different forums when before the KSAT they had contended that the transfer was due to elections. In that regard, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Bansh Lal vs. Sahodor Prasad Mahto and Others, (2010) 9 SCC 655 is relied on, wherein with reference to the stand taken by the State Government and there being a change in stand, it is observed that curiously, but unfortunately the State Government which had defended the qualification, service and ultimate appointment of the appellant as Chairman of the Board before the High Court, have changed their stand before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for reasons best known to them and supported the order of the High Court. In that circumstance it was held therein that it is impermissible for the State to take a different view in the absence of any change of circumstance. 20. In that circumstance it was held therein that it is impermissible for the State to take a different view in the absence of any change of circumstance. 20. Further, to contend that the transfer order itself indicates the reason, as also the KSAT order though cryptic refers to election transfer and the same cannot be supplemented by any other reasons at this point in time, the decision in the case of Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. and another vs. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and Others, (2013) 10 SCC 95 is relied upon, wherein on taking note of the order passed, it was found that the impugned judgment was indubitably a cryptic one and does not contain the reasons on which the decision is predicated. It is held therein that since reasons are not contained in the impugned judgment itself, it must be set aside on the short ground that a party cannot be permitted to travel beyond the stand adopted and expressed by it in its earlier decision. With reference to the case in Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner, it was taken note that when a statutory functionary makes an order on certain grounds its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. 21. The learned Government Advocate, per contra would vehemently contend that the transfer order was made in public interest and such order does not call for interference and that the Courts should be slow to interfere. In that regard he has relied on the following decisions: (i) The case of N.K.Singh vs. Union of India and Others, (1994) 6 SCC 98 wherein it is held as follows: "23. However, acceptance of the appellant's claim would imply that no other officer in the CBI is competent and fit to conduct the sensitive investigation and his successor would stand automatically discredited without any such allegation being made or hearing given to him. That indeed is a tall order and impermissible in this proceeding where the other officers are not even participants. The tendency of anyone to consider himself indispensable is undemocratic and unhealthy. That indeed is a tall order and impermissible in this proceeding where the other officers are not even participants. The tendency of anyone to consider himself indispensable is undemocratic and unhealthy. Assessment of worth must be left to the bona fide decision of the superiors in service and their honest assessment accepted as a part of service discipline. Transfer of a government servant in a transferable service is a necessary incident of the service career. Assessment of the quality of men is to be made by the superiors taking into account several factors including suitability of the person for a particular post and exigencies of administration. Several imponderables requiring formation of a subjective opinion in that sphere may be involved, at times. The only realistic approach is to leave it to the wisdom of that hierarchical superiors to make that decision. Unless the decision is vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer, which alone can be scrutinised judicially, there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinising all transfers and the courts lack the necessary expertise for personnel management of all government departments. This must be left, in public interest, to the departmental heads subject to the limited judicial scrutiny indicated. 24. The private rights of the appellant being unaffected by the transfer, he would have been well advised to leave the matter to those in public life who felt aggrieved by his transfer to fight their own battle in the forum available to them. The appellant belongs to a disciplined force and as a senior officer would be making several transfers himself. Quite likely many of his men, like him, may be genuinely aggrieved by their transfers. If even a few of them follow his example and challenge the transfer in courts, the appellant would be spending his time defending his actions instead of doing the work for which he holds the office. Challenge in courts of a transfer when the career prospects remain unaffected and there is no detriment to the government servant must be eschewed and interference by courts should be rare, only when a judicially manageable and permissible ground is made out. This litigation was ill- advised." (ii) The case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2007) 8 SCC 150 wherein it is held as follows: "8. This litigation was ill- advised." (ii) The case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2007) 8 SCC 150 wherein it is held as follows: "8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned transfer order of the appellant from Muzaffarnagar to Mawana, District Meerut was made at the instance of an MLA. On the other hand, it has been stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 that the appellant has been transferred due to complaints against him. In our opinion, even if the allegation of the appellant is correct that he was transferred on the recommendation of an MLA, that by itself would not vitiate the transfer order. After all, it is the duty of the representatives of the people in the legislature to express the grievances of the people and if there is any complaint against an official the State government is certainly within its jurisdiction to transfer such an employee. There can be no hard and fast rule that every transfer at the instance of an M.P. or MLA would be vitiated. It all depends on the facts & circumstances of an individual case. In the present case, we see no infirmity in the impugned transfer order." (iii) The case of Rajendra Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2009) 15 SCC 178 wherein it is held as follows: "9. The courts are always reluctant in interfering with the transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of some statutory provisions or suffers from mala fides. In the case of Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and Others. v. State of Bihar and Others., this Court held : "4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders." 22. Having taken note of the said decisions, we are no doubt in respectful agreement with the proposition of law enunciated therein that when an examination of the transfer order in the regular course is per se questioned, the Courts should be slow in interfering and it was stated in the circumstance in which the transfer orders were in issue in the above noted cases. However, in the instant facts, the entire issue is with regard to the nature and purport of the impugned order as also the purpose for which such transfers were made and while examining those aspects, we have already concluded that the same is not in the nature of a general transfer as per the transfer policy of the State Government but at the instance of the Election Commission of India as per the guidelines stipulated by it for the purpose of free and fair elections being conducted. Hence, the said decisions will not be of assistance to the respondents in the present circumstance. 23. The learned Government Advocate has further contended that the petitioners are not sure of their case and have been seeking varied reliefs. He contends that initially they challenged the transfer order before KSAT, but are presently contending that the very order is a deputation and are seeking re-transfer. They have also accepted the order of KSAT and filed representation and despite the same being rejected, the endorsement is not questioned but are continuing to assail the KSAT order. 24. He contends that initially they challenged the transfer order before KSAT, but are presently contending that the very order is a deputation and are seeking re-transfer. They have also accepted the order of KSAT and filed representation and despite the same being rejected, the endorsement is not questioned but are continuing to assail the KSAT order. 24. Having taken note of the said contentions, we find that though the representations have been rejected subsequent to filing these petitions, the KSAT order in the backdrop of the transfer order dated 02.04.2018 itself is in issue before this Court. The official respondents themselves had contended before the KSAT that the transfers were due to elections and it was submitted that a consideration will be made as the elections were over. Despite the same, when a different stand is being adopted before this Court it is the official respondents who are not clear about their case. Hence, the entire aspect is required to be examined herein more particularly due to the varied stand being adopted by the official respondents rather than the petitioners, which accordingly has been done herein. The decision in the case of Badrinath vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu and Others, (2000) 8 SCC 395 wherein it is held that under Sub-Clause (a) of Article 356(1) of the Constitution of India the President may assume to himself all or any of the functions of the Government of the State and all or any of the powers vested in or exercisable by the Governor or anybody or authority in the State other than the legislature of the State. This flows from the general principle applicable to consequential orders. Once the basis of a proceeding is gone may be at a later point of time by order of a superior authority, any intermediate action taken in the meantime like the recommendation of the State and by the UPSC and the action taken thereon would fall to the ground. It is held that this principle of consequential orders which is applicable to judicial and quasi judicial proceedings is equally applicable to administrative orders. It is held that this principle of consequential orders which is applicable to judicial and quasi judicial proceedings is equally applicable to administrative orders. It is further held that in other words, where an order is passed by an authority and its validity is being reconsidered by a superior authority and if before the superior authority has given its decision, some further action has been taken on the basis of the initial orders of the primary authority, that such further action will fall to the ground the moment the superior authority has set aside the primary order. This decision relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners will be of assistance, as the examination herein with regard to the scope of the transfer order will put the matter to rest and the subsequent endorsement relating to representation will not be of any consequence. 25. Therefore taking into consideration all aspects, in the nature of the conclusion reached above, we declare that the order dated 02.04.2018 by which the petitioners herein, the private respondents herein and the other officers included thereunder were transferred, by the very nature of the order is not a general transfer as per the transfer policy/guidelines of the State Government but is a transfer/placement at the instance of the Election Commission of India as per the guidelines issued by them only for the purpose of conduct of free and fair elections. Hence, the officers concerned are entitled to be re-transferred/re-posted to the place where they were working earlier, after the election process is over. If any subsequent action was required including the implementation of the directions in B.K.Pavithra's case as contended by the official respondents, the same was to be made by separate orders in that regard after such re-transfer. In view of the declaration made herein the rejection of the representation made by the official respondents pursuant to the order of KSAT is held inconsequential. 26. Though in view of the above conclusion a direction to re-transfer all officers included in the order dated 02.04.2018 would have been justified, taking into consideration the time lapse and certain other transfers being made through the Official memorandum dated 17.07.2018 whereunder the petitioners in W.P.No.31054/2018 and W.P.No.31052/2018 are included, we find it appropriate not to affect the public service by a general direction. Hence, we deem it appropriate to reserve the liberty to such of those petitioners who desire to seek re-transfer to the place from which they were transferred through the order dated 02.04.2018. If such representation is made, they shall be re-transferred to the very post and the private respondents occupying such post may however be given the option to go back or be readjusted in any other post depending on their request and the exigency of service. The re-transfer/reposting once made will however be subject to the general transfer in accordance with the policy if need be and in that regard, the implementation of this order shall not be claimed as an immunity against future transfers in accordance with law or the reversion or posting made for implementation of the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.K.Pavithra's case. 27. To enable the process, such of the petitioners and private respondents seeking benefit of this order shall make the representations within 15 days and the Competent Authority shall pass orders of reposting within 15 days from the date of receipt of the representation. Accordingly, all these petitions stand disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.