ORDER : The Respondent No.5 in Application No.7075/2018 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [‘Tribunal’, for short], has come up in this writ petition, impugning the Order dated 5.12.2018 passed therein. 2. The brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under: The petitioner and Respondent No.5 are vying with each other to cling to the plum post in National Highways Authority of India where the post for which they are angling is post of the ‘Special Land Acquisition Officer’. When their service record is looked into, they have been all along hovering around the said post either in Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board [‘KIADB’, for short], National Highways Authority of India [‘NHAI’, for short] and Karnataka State Highway Improvement Project [‘KSHIP’, for short] which in general parlance, considered as plum post for Officers who aspire for such posting. Be that as it may. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner herein Harishilpa G.R., is a person who is appointed as ‘Tahsildar’ in 1998 batch whereas contesting Respondent No.5 in this writ petition Usha Rani N.C., was appointed in 1999 batch also as ‘Tahsildar’. It is seen that the candidates of 1998, 1999 and 2004 batch were before this Court in litigations raised in public interest. The said appointments have reached quietus in a Judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in batch of writ petitions commencing from W.P. No.27674/2012 and connected matters disposed of by Order dated 21.06.2016 which is not in dispute. While passing the said order, there is also passing reference by Coordinate Bench in paragraph 212 of the said Judgment, with reference to the selection which was made in the year 1998 particularly, in respect of 91 answer scripts, wherever individual candidates find that there is any discrepancy in considering the revaluation in said 91 answer scripts, they are at liberty to approach the Tribunal for necessary relief. 4. 4. It is seen that in the Order dated 21.06.2016 referred supra, the Coordinate Bench also observed in paragraph 2 of the operative portion of order as under: “[2] The revised list prepared by the KPSC in terms of the order dated 11th October 2002 in W.P. No.1254-8589/2002 which is affirmed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6172-6222/2005 vide Order dated 6th October, 2005, which was submitted to the Court by the KPSC in a sealed cover, which was webhosted by virtue of the order dated 11.11.2014 of this Court, is upheld. The KPSC and the State Government shall give effect to the said list.” A copy of the revised list prepared by KPSC in terms of the Order dated 11.11.2014 is in Notification bearing No.E[I]308/1819/PSC dated 25.01.2019. The same is produced by the fifth respondent as Annexure-II to I.A. No.1/2019 in this writ petition, wherein the list of candidates of 1998 batch is shown as “Revised selection list for the post of Gazetted Probationers 1998”, where the first 20 candidates are classified as Officers selected in the rank of ‘Assistant Commissioner’ – Group ‘A’ and next 48 candidates are considered for the post of ‘Assistant Controller’ – Group ‘A’ and thereafter 25 candidates are considered for the post of ‘Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax’ – Group ‘A’ and further 2 posts are considered for the post of ‘Treasury Officer’ – Group ‘A’, so on and so forth. It is necessary to observe that the name of the petitioner herein is in the cadre of ‘Assistant Controller’ at Sl. No.27 in the said Gazette Notification and that particular entry is seen in page3 of the said Notification which is at Annexure A2 to I.A. No.1/2019 filed by fifth respondent to the writ petition, thereby clearly indicating that petitioner Harishilpa G.R., is not in the cadre of ‘Assistant Commissioner’ but she is in the cadre of ‘Assistant Controller’ in the Accounts Department. 5. It is in this background, the lis between the petitioner herein and Respondent No.5 is fought. According to Respondent No.5, she is the candidate selected as ‘Tahsildar’ in the year 1999 and in the list which is finalized, her name is in the cadre of ‘Assistant Commissioner’. 5. It is in this background, the lis between the petitioner herein and Respondent No.5 is fought. According to Respondent No.5, she is the candidate selected as ‘Tahsildar’ in the year 1999 and in the list which is finalized, her name is in the cadre of ‘Assistant Commissioner’. Therefore, pursuant to the said classification, she is entitled to be posted as ‘Assistant Commissioner’ and as such, she has been working as ‘Assistant Commissioner’ in KSHIP, a venture of the State Government and it is stated that she is transferred from the said post to the post of ‘Special Land Acquisition Officer’ of NHAI by order dated 29.06.2017, while Respondent No.5 was working in the said post. 6. It is stated that the petitioner herein is transferred to the post where Respondent No.5 was working, which was subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal in Application No.7075/2018 on the ground that her transfer from the post of ‘Special Land Acquisition Officer’ of NHAI is premature in nature, in as much as, she has not completed two years in the said post. It is in this background, the said application was pursued and the same was allowed by Order dated 5.12.2018 which is subject matter of challenge in this writ petition by the petitioner who was Respondent No.5 before the Tribunal. 7. The said order dated 5.12.2018 is subject matter of challenge in this writ petition, where the petitioner herein has secured an interim order of stay of the order of the Tribunal so far as it pertains to the petitioner herein. However, it is seen that when these two persons were litigating before this Court as petitioner and Respondent No.5, there were certain changes with reference to the status of petitioner and fifth respondent herein, pursuant to Notification dated 25.01.2019 which is issued pursuant to the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 11.11.2014. Therefore, the said interim order dated 18.01.2019 in this proceedings does not enure to the benefit of the petitioner. However, in contempt proceedings initiated by the petitioner herein in CCC No.1769/2019 [Civil], there is a statement by the State having complied with the direction dated 18.01.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.54913/2018 [this very writ petition]. Therefore, the said interim order dated 18.01.2019 in this proceedings does not enure to the benefit of the petitioner. However, in contempt proceedings initiated by the petitioner herein in CCC No.1769/2019 [Civil], there is a statement by the State having complied with the direction dated 18.01.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.54913/2018 [this very writ petition]. It is in the light of the said observation passed in CCC No.1769/2019 [Civil], the petitioner is said to be continuing in the post of ‘Special Land Acquisition Officer’ of NHAI. 8. When this writ petition is taken up for consideration after hearing both learned Counsels appearing for the parties before this Court, it is seen that the manner in which their respective clients are trying to cling to the most fertile post for which they have been tirelessly fighting before the Tribunal as well as before this Court, is clear indication that their intention is not to serve the State but themselves. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.5 tried to assert that the petitioner being in the cadre of ‘Assistant Controller’, the post being classified as an ‘Officer’ in Accounts Department should not continue in the post for which she is not entitled to. In response, learned Counsel for the petitioner would try to impress this Court regarding the adamant attitude of the Respondent No.5 in trying to occupy only a plum post and nothing short of it, in bringing to the notice of this Court that, though Respondent No.5 was given posting as ‘Assistant Commissioner’ of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike’ [‘BBMP’, for short], for nearly one year she did not take charge in the transferred post and she is said to have sat at home. 9. It is stated that, only after issuance of show cause notice dated 29.04.2019 along with charges framed against the Respondent No.5, it is stated that she has joined service by reporting to Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms on 4.7.2019. However, it is not on record as to what is the outcome of the show cause notice dated 29.04.2019 and charges framed along with the notice. However, it is not on record as to what is the outcome of the show cause notice dated 29.04.2019 and charges framed along with the notice. When she was finally directed to report to duty, it is stated that she went to report to DPAR instead of to transferred post in BBMP and subsequently managed to get posting to the very post the petitioner was holding by Order dated 25.09.2019 and it is stated that the same is subsequently changed and now she is posted to KUIDFC as ‘Deputy Chief Officer’ where presently she is discharging her duty. It is further stated that the Respondent No.5 is also opposing this writ petition to ensure that the petitioner is removed from the post of ‘Special Land Acquisition Officer’ of NHAI and thereafter to occupy the said post. 10. After going through the contents of the writ petition, grounds urged therein as well as reply by the Respondent No.5, it is clearly seen that the problem lies with the Government in auctioning the plum post to the greedy Officers of the State. It is seen that those who are capable of manipulating things for getting into the plum post would be continued there. The resultant position is that general public are sufferers who cannot get any of their work done in the manner in which they are entitled to get it done. All the corrupt practices are also emanating from the manner in which transfers are being made by the State. 11. The present writ petition is one such classic example. When the Coordinate Bench of this Court has decided the fate of 1998 batch candidates by Judgment dated 21.06.2016 rendered in W.P. No.27674/2012, the status of the persons who were selected in the year 1998 for the post of ‘Tahsildar’ has reached finality with the Notification issued on 25.01.2019 as could be seen from the operative portion of the very same order at paragraph [2] referred to supra. It is further seen that even before the writ petition could be disposed of, the fate of the candidates with reference to their seniority was decided by interim order dated 11.11.2014 which is given effect to by the State by Notification dated 25.01.2019 which has reached finality except with reference to those who have grievance so far as it pertains to third revaluation being not in order, whether petitioner could be the beneficiary of such observation at paragraph 212 of the said Judgment is subject matter which is required to be decided by the Tribunal as and when it is raised. 12. In any event, for the present, the status of the petitioner is concerned, she is identified as an Officer belonging to the cadre of Accounts Department in ‘Assistant Controller’ cadre as could be seen in page3 of the Gazette Notification dated 25.01.2019. In this background, the question of posting the petitioner to any other post of ‘Assistant Commissioner’ or other cadre cannot be entertained and therefore the present writ petition which she is pursuing, seeking that she should be continued in the post of ‘Special Land Acquisition Officer’ of NHAI does not merit consideration. Accordingly, said prayer is rejected. 13. This Court would observe that the Government shall forthwith post the petitioner to any place in the cadre to which she presently belongs to, until correctness or otherwise of the said classification is decided by the Tribunal in a separate proceedings, if any, initiated by her. Till such time, the petitioner cannot be given any posting of ‘Assistant Commissioner’ cadre. 14. Coming to the status of Respondent No.5, it is clearly seen that she has been hovering around the post of ‘Special Land Acquisition Officer’, be it in NHAI, KSHIP or KIADB, thereby clearly indicating that she is also an aspiring candidate for the plum post. In this background, this Court would observe that the State Government shall take necessary decision to post these Officers i.e., petitioner and fifth respondent in a place where it is not Executive Post. That their request shall not be entertained for posting to any plum post. 15. In this background, this Court would observe that the State Government shall take necessary decision to post these Officers i.e., petitioner and fifth respondent in a place where it is not Executive Post. That their request shall not be entertained for posting to any plum post. 15. It is further observed that the State Government shall also ensure that the show cause notice issued to Respondent No.5 herein for not reporting to duty for nearly one year when she was removed from the post of SLAO and sent to BBMP along with charges referred to therein shall be revived. The same shall be taken to its logical end without closing the same by citing any other technical objection, excuses, which may be relied upon or raised by her. With such observation, this writ petition is disposed of.