WP(C) 4304/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI The petitioner, while working as a Senior Assistant in the office of the Sub-Reg istrar (Sadar), Nalbari, under the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner, Nalb ari, was transferred, by order, dated 02.06.2011, from the office of the Sub-Reg istrar (Sadar), Nalbari, to the office of the District Commandant, Home Guard, N albari. This order of transfer was put to challenge by way of a writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which gave rise to WP(C) 30 04/2011. By order, dated 01.08.2011, passed in the said writ petition, the writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation, which the petitioner had made against his transfer order, with further direction that, till the petitioner’s said representation wa s disposed of, status quo, as on the day of passing of the said order, i.e., 01. 08.2011, be maintained. By order, dated 17.08.2011, the Deputy Commissioner, Na lbari, has rejected the petitioner’s said representation. However, by the said order, dated 17.08.2011, the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari, has also modified the earlier order of transfer and has, thereby, transferred and posted the petition er in the office of the Circle Officer, Banekuchi Revenue Circle, Nalbari. Aggr ieved by the rejection of his representation, the petitioner has filed the prese nt writ petition impugning the order of rejection of his representation as well as the impugned modified transfer order. Heard Mr. A. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, and Mr. B. J. Gh osh, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State respondents. Considering the fact that the transfer of the petitioner is from the office of t he Sub-Registrar (Sadar), Nalbari, to the office of the Circle Officer, Banekuch i Revenue Circle, Nalbari, the transfer, which has, now, been made, cannot be in terfered with, because the petitioner has not been able to show that the transfe r order is illegal, arbitrary or mala fide. Though the petitioner has referred to an order, whereby the persons, other than the petitioner, have been detailed for computer training and the petitioner has not been so detailed, as an indicat ion to the fact that the authorities concerned has acted with pre-determined min d, the fact remains that when the original transfer order has been considered at the instance of the petitioner, the mere fact that the petitioner’s transfer ha s taken place without detailing him for computer training, the order, dated 17.0 8.2011, transferring the petitioner to the office of the Circle Officer, Banekuc hi Revenue Circle, Nalbari, cannot be said to be mala fide or arbitrary. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this Court does not f ind that the petitioner has been able to make out any extra-ordinary case warran ting interference of this Court with the impugned order in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefo re, not admitted and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. No order as to costs.