WP(C) 1008/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. AD Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms . A. Verma, learned Standing counsel, Health Department. I have also heard Mr. N . Haque, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 17.02.2011 (Annexure-VI) by w hich in partial modification of the earlier order dated 04.01.2011 he has been p osted at Bongaigaon and in his place by the said order the earlier order of tran sfer of the respondent No. 5 has been stayed. The petitioner has stated about his various postings in paragraph-2 of t he writ petition which is reproduced below: 2. That the petitioner was initially appointed as Food Inspector, in the year 1 992 and posted at Bokajan. Thereafter, in 1995 the petitioner was transferred an d posted at Haflong. In the year 2003, he was again transferred to Maibong in Ka rbi Anglang. Thereafter, in the same year, i.e. 2003, the petitioner was transfe rred to Karimganj and thereafter, in the year 2007, the petitioner was transferr ed to Silchar and on 04.01.2011, the petitioner was transferred and posted at Gu wahati and within a period of 20 days of the petitioner’s joining at Guwahati, t he respondent No. 2 again transferred the petitioner to Bongaigaon to favour the respondent No. 5, who has been in Guwahati for last 6 years. By order dated 04.01.2011, the petitioner was transferred and posted at Guwahati vice the respondent No. 5 who was transferred and posted at Bongaigaon. Accordingly, the petitioner was released from Silchar where he was earlier serv ing and thereafter he submitted joining report on 27.01.2011. However, immediate ly thereafter by impugned order dated 17.02.2011 was issued. Prior to that the r espondent No. 5 was directed to hand over the charge, but he did not comply. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents the real reason of the impugned order is stated to be the prayer made by the mother of the respondent No. 5 for his stay at Guwahati. The prayer so made by the mother of the responde nt No. 5 was to consider his stay at Guwahati and accordingly the impugned order was passed. Admittedly, before taking such a course of action the petitioner wa s not heard. In the counter affidavit, the respondent have enclosed the representatio n dated 11.01.2011 made by the mother of the respondent No. 5 to the Parliamenta ry Secretary. Although nothing has been disclosed as to what transpires thereaft er, but it is understood that the impugned order was passed as per the desire of the said Parliamentary Secretary. If pursuant to the earlier transfer order the petitioner joined at Guwah ati, it was incumbent on the part of the authority to consider his case as well before yielding to the recommendation made by the said Parliamentary Secretary. The impugned order being not the outcome of any public interest, in my consider ed view, same cannot be sustained. At this stage, Mr. N. Haque, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 submits that there are other vacancies in which the res pondent No. 5 can be accommodated. In view of the above, the writ petition allowed by setting aside and qua shing Annexure-VI order dated 17.02.2011. However, it will be open for the autho rity to consider the case of the respondent No. 5 for his accommodation at Guwah ati, if the same is feasible.