WP(C) 1160/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. M Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M Dutta, learned standing counsel for the Education Department and Mr. S N Sarma , learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.5. The petitioner, who was working as a Lecturer in DIET, Samuguri, Nagaon is befor e this Court to challenge the transfer order dated 14.3.2008 whereby he was tran sferred as Lecturer, DIET, Chabua, Dibrugarh. The reason for making the said challenge to the transfer order is that the petit ioner is a person from social studies stream and since his subject was not menti oned in the impugned transfer order, apprehension was expressed as to how the se rvices of the petitioner would be utilized in his transferred place at DIET, Cha bua. The Education Department has filed counter affidavit where in it has been stated that the post to which the petitioner has been transferred is one concerning Fo undation Education. Both the Foundation Education and Social Studies fall under Pre-Service Training Education (PSTE for short). The qualification required for both the subjects are also same. It is further averred that the transfer of Lect urer amongst PSTE stream except science stream are being made from time to time and can be made as these transfers do not hamper the training of the teachers wh o are imparted training in DIET. Accordingly, the transfer given to the petition er, without mentioning his subject is claimed to be justified. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the reply affidavi t filed, submits that qualification required for being appointed as a Lecturer i n Social Studies and Foundation Education are different and since the requisite qualifications are different, the petitioner cannot be posted on transfer to DIE T, Chabua to impart PSTE to the trainees. Mr. S N Sarma, representing the respondent No.5 submits that after her transfer and release from Chabua on 20.3.2008, she has already joined at DIET, Marigaon o n 24.3.2008 and notwithstanding the interim order passed by this Court on 24.6.2 008; she has not been paid her salaries. Mr. M Dutta, learned standing counsel for the Education Department submits that the grievances with regard to non-payment of salary would be taken care of and i f the stay order passed by this Court on 26.3.2008 in favour of the petitioner i s recalled, there would be no difficulty at all for payment of salaries to the t ransferred incumbents. I have considered the ground for challenge to the impugned transfer order and fi nd that the transfer order is not being challenged on any of the limited but wel l known grounds. The petitioner has been transferred to an equivalent post of Le cturer in an equivalent institution (DIET) from Marigaon where he has been poste d for last nearly 15 years and it cannot be inferred nor it is contended that th e said transfer order has not been made in public interest. No mala fide has als o been alleged. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the ground on which the transfer order dated 14.3.2008 is challenged by the petitioner as noticed a bove, cannot be considered a good ground for interfering with the right of the S tate to post their employees as per its discretion for best utilization of their services. Under the circumstances, I do not find that there is any justificatio n to continue with the interim order. Having considered the mater in its entirety, I am inclined to hold that the peti tioner has failed to demonstrate that any of his enforceable rights have been vi olated by the transfer order and accordingly the writ petition is also considere d to be without any legal merit. Under the circumstances, this writ petition fails and the interim order passed o n 26.3.2008 is recalled. However, the respondent Department is directed to ensure payment of salary to th e transferred incumbents without causing them any inconvenience. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.