WP(C) 1203/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Sri AR Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri RK Bora , learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the State Respondents. The challenge in the present writ petition is against an order dated 14.03.2008 by which the writ petitioner, Sri Jadab Sarkar, has been directed to join in the Central Jail, Guwahati, in terms of the earlier order of transfer dated 06.02. 2007. The facts are long but an attempt must be made to summarize. By an order dated 06.02.2007, the petitioner, who was working as a Warder in the District Jail at Dhubri was transferred to the Central Jail in Guwahati. At the time of the aforesaid transfer, the petitioner had put in over 12 years of serv ice in the Dhubri Jail. The petitioner, pursuant to the transfer order dated 06. 02.2007 came and joined in the Central Jail in Guwahati. The Officer, who had pa ssed the aforesaid transfer order had to go for training. The new incumbent (De puty Inspector General of Prisons, Range Guwahati) by order dated 21.08.2007 re- transferred the petitioner to the Dhubri Jail. The original incumbent who had e ffected the transfer having re-joined duties on completion of training, by order dated 07.03.2008 had cancelled all the transfer orders issued by the person-in- charge of the Office during her training, in so far as the incumbents who had not completed three years in their respective station are concerned. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 14.03.2008 the petitioner was brought back to the C entral Jail in Guwahati in terms of the initial transfer order dated 06.02.2007. The above facts clearly negative the plea of frequent transfers set up by the pe titioner in the writ petition. The petitioner had been transferred from Dhubri to Guwahati by order dated 6.02.2007 after having served in Dhubri for over 12 years. The affidavit of the Respondents indicates that the re-transfer of the pe titioner to Dhubri by order dated 21.08.2007 was on the basis of the representat ion filed by the wife of the petitioner. The circumstances in which the petition er was brought back to Central Jail in Guwahati by the impugned order dated 14.0 3.2008 have already been noticed. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the present is a case of frequent transfer. The petitioner has also alleged that the shifting of his station from Dhubri to Guwahati and vice versa has affected his family life including the education of his minor daughter. The stand taken by the writ petitioner is not correct. Mater ials have been laid before the Court to show that the petitioner, after being t ransferred to Guwahati, had retained the accommodation allotted to him in the D hubri Jail where his family continued to reside and furthermore his minor daught er had continued to remain in the school in Dhubri. The aforesaid facts have not been pointed out by the petitioner in the writ petition filed, which also incli nes the Court to take the view that the writ petition suffers from incorrect nar ration of the relevant facts. In the above facts and circumstances, the Court is of the view that the order da ted 14.3.2008 does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness to justify interference. The writ petition, accordingly, is dismissed, however, without imposing any cost. The interim order dated 28.03.2008 is vacated.