JUDGMENT
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.
1. The petitioner is the applicant in Application No. 5536/2006 filed in the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. The challenge in the said application is against an order dated 22.7.2006 passed by the Director General of Police, transferring the petitioner/applicant from District Armed Reserve, Hassan District to District Armed Reserve, Chamarajanagar. The Tribunal disposed of the application, directing the Cadre Management Authority to consider and dispose of the representation dated 24.7.2006 of the applicant in accordance with law, as early as possible, but not later than 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, keeping in mind the grounds stated by the applicant, including the hardship alleged.
2. Though the petitioner has no grievance against the direction to the Cadre Management Authority to consider and dispose of his representation, he is aggrieved by the refusal of the Tribunal to stay the implementation of the impugned order till the Cadre Management Authority disposes the petitioner’s representation.
3. Hence, the only question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is, whether the Tribunal erred in not staying the impugned transfer, pending decision of the Cadre Management Authority on the representation submitted by the applicant/petitioner. We are of the view that, merely because, the Tribunal directed the Cadre Management Authority to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation, the Tribunal is not bound to stay the impugned transfer, pending such decision. Whether or not the transfer should be kept in abeyance will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
4. The fact that in one case the transfer was kept in abeyance pending decision of the Cadre Management Authority, does not entitle the applicant in another case to claim the right to have the transfer stayed in his case, pending decision of the Cadre Management Authority In granting the stay, the Tribunal is only obliged to take a decision in a fair and just manner. Unless the exercise of power by the Tribunal is shown to be arbitrary, this Court cannot invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.
5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are not satisfied that the decision of the Tribunal not to keep the transfer in abeyance pending decision of the Cadre Management Authority is vitiated by any arbitrariness. Hence, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and writ petition is dismissed.