B.S. Patil, J.

This writ appeal is filed challenging the order dated 24.8.2016 passed in WP No. 204024/2016. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant as premature and misconceived.

2. The facts involved in the case, briefly stated are that writ petitioner Alla Saheb was working as Executive Engineer, District Urban Development Cell, Vijayapura. He was working there with effect from 6.3.2014. By the order dated 18.8.2016 impugned in the writ petition, petitioner was displaced from his post. The fifth respondent - Sharanappa C. Oni was posted to his place as Executive Engineer. Petitioner was required to report to the Head Office awaiting order of posting to any other place.

3. The said order was challenged by the appellant herein inter alia contending that the same was illegal, arbitrary and was the result of colourable exercise of powers. It was specifically alleged that the impugned order of transfer was contrary to the regulations and circular guidelines issued by the Government which were declared by this Court as having statutory force. In other words, the writ petitioner relied on the Government guidelines dated 07.06.2013 which imposed several restrictions and regulated transfer of Government servants.

4. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition at the stage of preliminary hearing. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal has been filed. It is principally urged before us that the learned single Judge has not properly construed the effect and purport of the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Chandru. H.N. v. State of Karnataka & others, 2011 (3) KLJ 562, and has not referred to or examined the effect of another Full Bench decision rendered in the case of S.N. Gangadharaiah, K.A.S. v. The State of Karnataka, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Services-II) and another, ILR 2015 KAR 1955.

5. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that learned single Judge erred in holding that transfer guidelines could not be applied in a straight jacket manner nor it could be held that deviation from the said guidelines was not possible. It was lastly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that order of the learned single Judge which proceeded on the basis that there was no cause of action for the writ petitioner to approach this Court as there was no order transferring him to any other place but he was only directed to report to the higher authorities was unsustainable.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent - Sharanappa C. Oni, urges that this appeal, has been rendered infructuous as a subsequent order has been passed on 5.10.2016 by the State cancelling the transfer of the writ petitioner from Bijapur and posting 5th respondent - Sharanappa C. Oni to Tumkur/Chitradurga Urban Development Cell. He further points out that a writ petition has been filed by the 5th respondent - Sharanappa C. Oni challenging the said order dated 5.10.2016 in Writ Petition No. 205090/2016 wherein an interim order of stay has been granted and therefore parties have to work out their remedy in the pending writ petition and hence consideration of the present appeal was rendered academic.

7. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that guidelines issued by the State Government were only directory in nature and they could not bind the State Government because they are not mandatory. He, therefore, urges that the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that there are two Full Bench decisions on the point with regard to the nature, scope and enforce-ability of the guidelines framed by the State Government regulating the 'transfer' of government servants.

9. The first judgment on the point is rendered by the Full Bench in the case of Chandru H.N. (cited supra). In the said case, the Full Bench was considering the