WP(C) 1148/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI Heard Mr. S. N. Sarma, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petiti oner, and Ms. H. M. Phukan, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State respondents. Heard also Mr. B. Rahman, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3-caveator. The caveat stands discharged. By the impugned order, dated 09.02.2010 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition ), the writ petitioner, while serving as Divisional Officer, Barpeta Soil Conser vation Division, Barpeta, was transferred against the vacant post of, and posted as, Superintendent, Assam Soil Conservation Training School, Mahu r, N. C. Hills, with the direction that respondent No. 3 herein would hold the c harge of the petitioner’s office in addition to his own duties. The petitioner impugned the said transfer order on the ground, inter alia, that the respondent No. 3 is a junior person; whereas there are several persons senior to the respon dent No. 3 and yet, the respondent No. 3 was directed to hold the charge of the petitioner’s office. It was further alleged by the petitioner that the said ord er of transfer is mala fide. Considering the fact that the petitioner has, admittedly, completed thre e years of service as Divisional Officer, Barpeta Soil Conservation Division, th e impugned transfer order cannot be interfered with, for, it would be for the St ate respondents to decide as to who would replace the petitioner and it is not f or the petitioner to say as to who should or should not hold the charge of the o ffice, which the petitioner is presently holding. Be that as it may, the State respondents have alleged, by filing their counter-a ffidavit, that there were some allegations against the petitioner and a magister ial enquiry was ordered. In this regard, the petitioner has submitted, with the help of his affidavit-in-reply, to the effect that the magisterial enquiry, whi ch was held, has already exonerated him. In the fact situation of the present c ase, this Court is not required to express any opinion on the correctness or oth erwise of the findings of the said enquiry. In view, however, of the fact that the petitioner has, as already indica ted above, completed three years of service in his capacity as Divisional Office r, Barpeta Soil Conservation Division, his transfer from the said place of posti ng cannot be interfered with and it would be for the State respondents to decide his place of posting. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest o f justice, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order, date d 09.02.2010. As far as the petitioner is concerned, it is clear that the offic e, to which he has been transferred, is lying vacant. Situated thus, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty granted to the Sta te respondents to change/modify the impugned order, dated 09.02.2010, if they de em necessary in public interest. However, so long as the impugned order is not modified, the petitioner, as an employee of the government, is bound to comply w ith the same. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall sta nd disposed of.