By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

2. Supplementary counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on record.

3. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by the petitioner feeling aggrieved against the order dated 22.5.2008 contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition by which he was transferred from Chhata Mathura to Kushi Nagar.

4. While assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the Government order dated 22.5.2008 circulated by the Joint Secretary, providing that persons who are continuing on a post in pursuance of the interim order or orders of the High Court, shall be posted at the place of lower importance. Submission of the petitioner’s counsel is that since the transfer is influenced by the condition No. 3 provided in the Government order dated 22.5.2008, it suffers from extraneous reasons and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution being arbitrary in nature.

5. At the very outset, the learned CSC has submitted that the offending portion of the Government order dated 22.5.2008 has been withdrawn by the subsequent Government order/circular dated 23.10.2008 contained in Annexure SCA-2 to the supplementary counter affidavit keeping in view the observation of this Court on earlier date.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and proceed to decide the writ petition at this stage.

7. The Government order dated 22.5.2008 which has been relied upon by the respondents while passing the impugned order of transfer seems to be an order tending to interference with the administration of justice. The offending portion of the said order as given in the para-3, is reproduced as under :

“3. Kripya aise upnibandhakon jinhein punaravantan mein koi sthan avantit nahein hai ya lok sewa aayog ki chaynit suchi mein nahein hai tatha vartman mein ma. uchcha nyayalaya sa sthagan adesh ke tahat upnibandhak ke pad par karyarat hain, ko sthanantaran satra mein rajasva ki dristi se kam mahatvapurna sthanon par tainat kiya jana sunischit karne ka kast karen.”

8. When the aforesaid portion of the order dated 22.5.2008 contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition was shown to the Court an observation was made by this Court that the order is contemptuous and tends to interfere with the administration of justice. Only because litigants approach this Court, they cannot be persecuted. Learned CSC agreed for the recall of the Government order dated 22.5.2008. Earlier statement was made by the learned Standing Counsel that record has been sent to the Chief Minister for approval but later on, the learned Chief Standing Counsel fairly agreed to comply with the interim order passed by this Court. Now by filing supplementary counter affidavit of the Joint Secretary, it has been stated that the interim order passed by this Court has been complied with and entire Government order dated 22.5.2008 has been withdrawn.

9. Though after, withdrawal of the Government order dated 22.5.2008 there appears to be no ground existing to proceed further against the offending portion of that order but since the transfer order has not been withdrawn, we are proceeding to decide the said controversy hereinafter.

10. Under the constitutional scheme, three wings of the Government have been assigned constitutional statutory duties to serve the peoples of the country. However, the judiciary has been assigned the power to uphold the constitution and every order or statute or enactment of the State or the Central Government is subject to judicial review. Special Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment reported in : (2007) 2 SCC 1, I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamilnadu, finally settled the law that power of judicial review subject to certain norms is vested in the higher judiciary of the country and every State action may be subject to judicial review in case cit