WP(C) 4950/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T VAIPHEI Heard Mr S Banik, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr AK Bhuyan, the learned Standing counsel, IWT Department and Mr PP Baruah, the l earned counsel for the private respondent No. 6. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.09.2011 transferring h im to the Inland Water Transport Sub-Division, Goalpara to look after the work o f the Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub-Division, Goalpara after stripping him o f the charge of Deputy Director (Design) with immediate effect. According to the petitioner, the private respondent has been allowed to hold the additional char ge of Deputy Director (Design) IWT, Assam, addition to his own duties as AEE(TC) by replacing him when he has already been functioning successfully as Incharge of Deputy Director (Design) for the last seven years. It is also the case of t he petitioner that he was sent to Pune and Kokata on 16.09.2011 and 17.09.2011 r espectively for inspection of FPR Boats of the Home Department accompanied by th e team of officials of Police Department, which has been used as a device to div est him of his assignment as Incharge Deputy Director (Design), IWT. The main s ubmission of the leaned counsel for the petitioner is that the transfer order is malafide inasmuch as no apparent reason for which the petitioner has transferre d is discernible. The learned Standing counsel refutes the contention of the lea rned counsel for the petitioner and contends that the transfer order is an innoc uous one and no malafide action was taken by the respondent authorities in direc ting the private respondent to hold the charge of Deputy Director (Design), whic h is a post higher than his substantive post and which he had been holding for t he last seven years also. In order to substantiate his case, the learned Standi ng counsel has excessively read out the notings of the relevant file of the Inla nd Water Transport Department to show cause that the transfer order was passed i n accordance with law and is in fact a better arrangement to ensure that a super ior officer like the private respondent looks after the post. After giving my a nxious consideration to the contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearin g for the rival parties and after giving my due consideration to the materials o n record, I am of the view that the writ petition has no merit. In the first pl ace, the petitioner has no vested right to continue to hold to the post of Incha rge Deputy Director (Design), inasmuch as this post is higher than his substanti ve post. Even after continuing in that post on Incharge basis for seven years, he cannot now demand that he should be allowed to continue to hold the charge of this post perpetually. Secondly, the allegation of malafide in removing him fr om the post of Incharge Deputy Director (Design) is not borne out by the record produced by the learned Standing counsel, IWT Department. The parameters for in terference by this Court in a transfer matter is no longer res integra. This Co urt can interfere only if a transfer order is passed by the authority not compet ent to do so or is in violation of a statutory provision or is malafide. None o f the aforesaid ingredients are shown to be present by the petitioner so to warr ant the interference of this Court. In this view of the matter, the impugned tr ansfer order dated 15.09.2011 (Annexure F) to the writ petition cannot be faulte d with. For what has been stated in the foregoing, this writ petition is hereby dismissed by directing the parties to bear their respective costs. The dismissa l of this writ petition will not, however, bar the petitioner from approaching t he respondent authorities to ventilate his grievance, if so advised. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated.