WA 125/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.MADAN B. LOKUR THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY (Madan B. Lokur, CJ) The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 11.3.2011 passed in W.P.(C) No.829 of 2011. The appellant was transferred by an order dated 5.2.2011 from Silchar Na tional Highway Sub-Division to Hailakandi Building Sub-Division. In his place, R espondent No.5 was posted in the Silchar National Highway Sub-Division. The records pertaining to the transfers have been placed before us and w e find from a perusal thereof that the proposal to transfer the petitioner was o riginally initiated on 19.1.2011. On 4.2.2011 before issuing the order of transf er, it was noted is that the appellant was not competent for works pertaining to the National Highway while Respondent No.5 is a capable officer. Even though Re spondent No.5 had put in three years in Silchar, he had no objection to continue remaining in Silchar. It is clear from the above that the transfer was made in the exigency of service. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the transfer was malafide since it was made to accommodate Respondent No.5. We think that the appellant h as pitched his case very high. The records show that Respondent No.5 was more co mpetent to deal with the National Highway construction as against the appellant. It is for this reason that Respondent No.5 was posted in the Silchar Nat ional Highway Sub-Division. The posting of Respondent No.5 necessitated the tran sfer of the appellant out of Silchar and so he was posted at Hailakandi Building Sub-Division against the existing vacancy. We find no reason to interfere with the transfer order or the order pass ed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has directed the respondents to reconsider the transfer of Respondent No.5. We do not find any reason to interfere with this pa rt of the order. We would require the respondents to reconsider the transfer of Respondent No.5. In so far as the appellant is concerned, since his transfer is upheld, no further order is required to be passed in this regard. The appeal stands dismissed. The observation made with regard to the work or capability of the appell ant should be understood in the context of the transfer order only.