- (1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 04.05.2011 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2215 of 2009 and submitted that firstly, the petitioner was working as Principal and was transferred as Lecturer and that too, to work under a junior person who was holding the charge of the Principal. It is also submitted that the transfer order was passed without obtaining approval of the Establishment Committee. It is submitted that earlier also petitioner was transferred to post where her junior was working as Principal then the petitioner approached this Court to challenge the said order of her transfer by preferring W.P.(S) No. 5206 of 2008 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 05.02.2009 wherein it was found that the petitioner cannot be put to humiliating condition of working under her junior and it was also found that the approval was not obtained from the Establishment Committee and on these grounds, the writ petition of the petitioner was allowed and order of transfer was set aside. It appears from the facts of the case that the petitioner is Lecturer and was holding the post of the Principal from where she has been transferred. It may be true that at the time of transfer, she may have been sent to another place to work on the post of Lecturer but not below the cadre in which she was appointed. The petitioner may have been, at that time, was to work under a junior who was holding the post of Principal and that situation is no more in existence. Therefore, the cause does not survive to the writ petitioner. So far as non -obtaining of any approval of Establishment committee is concerned, for that we are of the considered opinion that such approval and recommendation can be obtained post facto also. This Court should be very slow in interfering in the matter of transfer and also in view of the various recent judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it has been held that institutional discipline should not be disturbed because of some non -observance of procedure only and, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge in letters patent appellate jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, the L.P.A. having no merit, is dismissed.;