WA 19/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE D BISWAS, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. D.Barkakati, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. GN Sahewala, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.6. Mr. I. C houdhury, the learned counsel appears for the Govt. respondents. In this appeal, the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.12.2006 in W.P.(C) No.5250 of 2006 is assailed. The present appellant as writ petitioner filed a writ petition challengi ng notification dated 11.10.2006, whereby the transfer order issued vide notific ation dated 21.9.2006, transferring the appellant to Dispur was cancelled. The c ontention raised by the appellant is that the said cancellation order was passed without consideration of public interest and without following the norms prescr ibed in office memorandum dated 19.9.1992. It appears from the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge th at the Govt. records pertaining to the Page No. W.A. NO.19 OF 2007 transfer of the appellant were examined and the records revealed that the appell ant had been continuously posted in Guwahati during 1996 to 2006, except a gap o f eight months during the said period. On the basis of such facts, which were br ought to the notice of the concerned authorities as well as the Chief Minister, who is supposed to approve transfer when transfer orders are issued before compl etion of the normal tenure of three years, the order of cancellation of transfer was issued. The said order was passed in terms of the memorandum dated 19.9.199 2 as administrative approval of the Chief Minister was taken prior to issuance o f the said order. On the basis of such finding, the learned Single Judge decline d to entertain the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition was dismisse d. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for th e parties. In matters of transfer, Court’s interference is not called for unless there is infraction of statutory norms or when transfer orders are passed for e xtraneous considerations. In the instant case, the impugned order was passed after taking note of Page No. W.A. NO.19 OF 2007 relevant materials and approval of the Chief Minister was also taken as per the requirement of the memorandum dated 19.9.1992. Having noted the arguments as well as the reasoning given for dismissal of the w rit petition, we feel that no interference is called for with the judgment passe d by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No cost.