ORDER 1. The petitioner serving as LDC, Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Gwalior, is before this Court with a grievance that while his wife is also serving as a Teacher in the same school, petitioner has been transferred to Mandapam (Tamil Nadu) vide order dated 4.8.2023. 2. It appears that the petitioner preferred a representation against the said transfer vide his representation dated 5.8.2023 (Annexure P-6). The same remained undecided. Under such circumstance, petitioner approached Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) against the impugned transfer order relying upon clauses contained in Part -A, Part I-B of the transfer policy in-vogue in relation to transfer read with circular dated 30.9.2009. The CAT though issued notices and called upon respondent to file reply, however, vide impugned order dated 11.10.2023 has fixed the case for further consideration on 7.2.2024 during circuit sitting at Gwalior. 3. Shri Ankur Mody, learned counsel for the petitioner, has made a fair submission to the effect that in cases of grievances against transfer, due indulgence is given by this Court and other forums expeditiously, as with passage of time pendency of proceedings may jeopardize not only the interest of justice, but may also the affect the respondent. He submits that deferment of hearing to 7.2.2024 at the next circuit sitting at Gwalior shall not only impede the course of justice, but also render the Original Application pending before the CAT infructuous. Learned counsel submits that regard being had to the concept of justice, equity and good conscience, humble petitioner serving at a lower post, expects meaningful audience in the matter of an arbitrary transfer to a distant place from Gwalior to Tamil Nadu, whereas his wife working at same school is residing at Gwalior. Learned counsel also made a reference to the transfer policy and the circulars referred above to advance humble submission against impugned transfer, albeit he rightly submits that there is no vested right against the transfer as it is an incidence of service. Nevertheless there are exception thereto of which there has been judicial cognizance by appropriate forums regard being had to the policy or guidelines for transfer in-vogue in a given establishment, hence, prays for indulgence under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for ventilation of his grievance against transfer. 4. Nevertheless there are exception thereto of which there has been judicial cognizance by appropriate forums regard being had to the policy or guidelines for transfer in-vogue in a given establishment, hence, prays for indulgence under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for ventilation of his grievance against transfer. 4. Shri Vinod Pathak, learned counsel for respondents, on advance notice has raised a preliminary objection as against maintainability of the writ petition with submission that order impugned is interlocutory in nature arising out of pending Original Application in the CAT. According to him, miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against final order of CAT may be maintainable and not against interlocutory order. 5. Upon hearing counsel for the parties, we reject the preliminary objection for reasons, namely, power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as has been held to be part of basic structure of the Constitution of India in the case of L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India reported in AIR 1997 SC 1125 . Even otherwise, there is no law restricting the power of judicial review of this Court in exercise of extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Indeed, the jurisdiction so vested is discretionary in nature and subject to self-imposed limitation. The same is exercised with concept of justice, equity and good conscience. 6. We have perused the impugned order. As a measure of judicial discipline, though we do not entertain the writ petition, as Original Application against the impugned transfer order is pending consideration, but we find substantial force in the submission of Shri Mody that interim application seeking protection against the transfer requires to be considered with promptitude regard being had to the nature of dispute and ofcourse with due adherence to the policy in-vogue in that behalf. We, accordingly, dispose of this writ petition with directions that respondents shall file reply to Original Application and interim application within one week from today at the CAT, Bench Jabalpur. Learned CAT shall hear and consider the application for interim relief thereafter preferably in the week commencing 30.10.2023 and decide the same. 7. With aforesaid, writ petition stands disposed of.