- (1.) The petitioner-in-person, who is an advocate is not present though the date was fixed in his presence. The petitioner's application dated 29/3/1994 is rejected.
(2.) In the petitioner's absence, we have gone through his writ petition.
(3.) The constitutional validity of the transfer policy was judicially upheld in s. P. Gupta case. In the Judges' case II it was so held that judicial review in the matter of transfer of Judges was not excluded but the area of justiciability was limited. It is clear from that judgment that it was held with a view to prevent any transferred Judge being exposed to any litigation involving him except when he chose to resort to it himself, in the available limited area of justiciability. The parameters of the area of justiciability in the sphere of judicial review have been clarified further in K. Ashok Reddy v. government of indict. Three Judges' bench in Ashok Reddy case said: "We consider it sufficient to observe that the limited area of justiciability in this sphere being clearly declared in the Judges' case-ll and also herein while making it clear that no one other than the transferred judge himself can question the validity of a transfer. . ";