WP(C) 5013/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BK SARMA Heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B. Pathak, learned co unsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R. Dubey, the learned counsel representing the respondent author ity. Considering the nature of the order, I propose to pass, no notice be issued to t he respondent No. 7. The petitioner who is presently serving as Manager(Law) under the respondent aut hority at Guwahati is aggrieved by the order dated 23-10-2009( Annexure - 12) b y which he has been transferred to Ahmedabad and the respondent No. 7 has been t ransferred from RED, SR to RED, NER, Guwahati. It is the case of the respondent authority that pursuant to the said transfer order, the respondent No. 7 has bee n released from RED, SR, and he has reported for duty at Guwahati on 19-11-2009. However in view of the interim order passed on 18-11-2009 presently there are t wo officers against one post. The petitioner was first appointed as Assistant Grade - I(Legal) on 6-3-1997 and thereafter on 16-7-2001 was promoted as Assistant Manager(Law) and posted at Hy derabad. In the year 2003(20-11-2003) he was transferred from Hyderabad to Kolka ta. On 26-9-2005 the petitioner was promoted as Manager(Law) and by order dated 3-10-2006 he was transferred from Kolkata to Guwahati. As per the policy decision of the respondent authority, the petitioner made a re presentation on 29-5-2008 expressing his choice place of posting. By order dated 22-6-2009 he was transferred from Guwahati to Allahabad making a grievance agai nst which the petitioner made representation dated 8-7-2009 which was duly forwa rded. In consideration of the representation, the transfer order was modified an d the petitioner was posted to Kolkata by order dated 7-9-2009. On 14-9-2009 the petitioner was asked to handover charge but since the incumbent to whom the cha rge was to be given, declined to takeover charge, no charge could be given. After the aforesaid developments, the impugned transfer order dated 23-10-2009 h as been issued transferring the petitioner from Guwahati to Ahmedabad. Being agg rieved the petitioner made further representation on 27-10-2009 and the same was duly forwarded on 28-10-2009. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been stated that the i mpugned order has been issued in the exigency of service as there is requirement of a Manager(Law) at Ahmedabad. According to the respondents, there is none to look after the post of Manager(Law) at Ahmedabad. In para 11 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that once V.P. Arya, Sen ior Manager(Law) who was transferred from RED, ER to CACT, Allahabad by order da ted 7-10-2009 had submitted a representation on 9-9-2009 praying for cancellatio n of his transfer to Allahabad and in consideration of the same, he has been ret ained at Kolkata. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent authorit y submits that the primary ground urged in the representation was that said Sri Arya has not completed 5 years of tenure at Kolkata. According to him he is stil l left with one year to complete the said tenure. It is because of retention of Sri V.P. Arya, Senior Manager(Law) , on the basis of the aforesaid representation, dated 9-9-2009, a further p roposal was mooted for transfer of the petitioner as there is none to look afte r the post of Manager(Law) at Ahmedabad. Further stand of the respondents is that before the representation made by the p etitioner could be considered, he filed the instant writ petition and obtained t he interim order and as the matter is subjudice, his representation could not be disposed of. Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that s ince assurance was given to the petitioner and his request for transfer to Kolka ta was acceded to, he has made all the arrangement for shifting to Kolkata inclu ding the admission of his daughter at Kolkata. On the other hand, Mr. Choudhury , learned Sr. counsel for the respondent authority submits that there being no m alafide exercise of power and/or violation of statutory rules, the writ court wo uld be reluctant to interfere with the transfer order. During the course of hearing a suggestion was given by the court as to whether i n due course, upon transfer of the incumbent at RED, ER, Kolkata, on completion of tenure of his posting, the petitioner could be accommodated at Kolkata. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel representing the respondent authority, upon instr uction, submits that since the representation of the petitioner is pending, that aspect of the matter may also be considered by the respondent authority. Mr. Dutta, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the petiti oner shall carry out the order of transfer subject to the condition that in one year the petitioner would be transferred back to Kolkata as was earlier done by the order dated 7-9-2009. Mr. Dutta has made this submission on the ground that since the incumbent at Kolkata will be completing 5 yrs tenure posting within ne xt one year, there will be no difficulty in bringing back the petitioner to Kolk ata within one year, which is also his choice place of posting. Considering the matter in its entirety this writ petition is disposed of with th e following order - 1) The petitioner shall carry out the transfer order dated 23-10- 2009 by which he has been transferred to Ahmedabad. After such joining of the p etitioner at Ahmedabad the respondent authority shall dispassionately consider h is case on the basis of the representation he has already made for his transfer to Kolkata taking into account the observations made above relating to the posti ng of Sri V.P. Arya who is going to complete his tenure within one year. 2) The respondent authority shall also consider the case of the p etitioner against the vacant post at Airport Director, Kolkata to which post onl y he was transferred by order dated 7-9-2009. This will be irrespect ive of the aforesaid exercise under Clause 1. 3) While considering the case of the petitioner as aforesaid, the r espondents will also bear in mind that some officers are continuing in one place for years together beyond the normal tenure and are not being disturbed and tha t it is their adopted policy to accommodate officers in their choice place of p osting and that in fact the petitioner was given his choice positing at Kolkata , but the same had to be disturbed to accede to the request of others. As state above, the post at Airport Director, Kolkata is still vacant, to which post onl y the petitioner was earlier transferred. It is expected that there will be a happy end to the entire episode an d the respondent authority shall suitably accommodate the petitioner at Kolkata within the aforesaid one year period or even earlier to that.