Navin Sinha, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioners came to this Court assailing their orders of transfer vis-a-vis the private respondents inter alia on the grounds that they were senior to the private respondents and, hence, they were entitled to a posting of their choice. The Establishment Committee recommendations of their places of posting was in consonance with law. The subsequent interference therewith by the Minister were acts of favouritism to accommodate the private respondents rendering the changes arbitrary and mala fide.

3. Orders for status quo had been passed with regard to the transfers earlier by this Court.

4. This Court heard these writ applications together. By judgment and order dated 8.7.2005 this Court opined that in view of the fact that the transfers in question were only by way of a working arrangement made as far back as 2003, in the year mid 2005 there was no justification to interfere with the same when the State was in the process of finalizing the gradation list and regular transfer and postings, which was being monitored by a Bench of this Court being CWJC No. 139/04 (Dr. Arun Kum