WP(C) 1909/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE IA ANSARI The petitioner, who has been working as a Pump Operator in Gunjung (PHE) Sub-Div ision, has put to challenge the order, dated 01.03.2011, issued by the responden t No.3, namely, Executive Engineer (PHE) Haflong Division, Haflong, transferring the petitioner to Haflong (PHE) Urban Sub-Division and replacing the petitioner by respondent No.6, who had been working at Haflong (PHE) Urban Sub-Division. Heard Ms. N. Mitra, learned counsel, for the petitioner, and Mr. RK Bora, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Heard also Mr. PK Tiwari, learned counsel, for the respondent No.7. Upon perusal of the pleadings on record and upon hearing the learned cou nsel for the parties, what transpires is that Haflong has a division of Public H ealth Engineering and this division is divided into three Sub-Divisions, namely, Gunjung (PHE) Sub-Division, Haflong Urban Sub-Division and Haflong Rural Sub-Di vision, all the divisions being under charge of respective Assistant Executive Engineers. The respondent contends that though the petitioner’s service has been regularized in the year 2005, he has been working, at Gunjung (PHE) Sub-Divisio n, since the year 1987 and respondent No.6 has been working at Haflong Urban Sub -Division for the last almost 20 years and as transfer is within the same divisi on of the PHE and the distance between Gunjung PHE Sub-Division and Haflong Urba n PHE Sub-Division is barely 10 Kilometers, respondent No.7 has made the transfe r for administrative reasons. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been working, at Gunjung (P HE) Sub-Division, for the last 24 years and he has been transferred to another S ub-Division, which falls under one and the same division, namely, Haflong (PHE) Division, which is barely at a distance of 10 kilometers from Gunjung (PHE) Sub- Division, the petitioner cannot really have any grievance to the impugned transf er order. It has, however, been submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner wa s asked to bring cash from Bank, but as the petitioner had declined to do so, be cause of reasons of security, the petitioner has been transferred mala fide. The re is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had declined and it is pursu ant thereto that the impugned transfer order has been made. Having considered the matter in its entirety, this Court does not find t hat the petitioner has been able to make out any case warranting interference by this Court with the impugned transfer order in exercise of its extra-ordinary j urisdiction under Article 226. In view of the above, this writ petition is not admitted and the same sh all accordingly stand dismissed. No costs.