WP(C) 2628/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. SK Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. A Verma, learn ed Standing Counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department, Assam. By order dated 07.05.2010 notice was issued in the instant proceeding. Whereas, the learned Standing Counsel of the aforementioned Department had accepted noti ce on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, notice was ordered to be issued to t he respondent No. 6 by registered post with A/D as well as by ordinary process. Liberty was also granted to the petitioner to cause personal service of notice on the said respondent. An affidavit has been filed by the petitioner on 20.05.2010 to the effect that t he notice of the instant proceeding along with two copies of the writ petition w hen offered to the respondent No. 6 she refused to accept the same. This statem ent is on oath and there is no reason to disbelieve the correctness thereof. In that view of the matter, the service of notice on the said respondent is accept ed. None appears on her behalf. The pleaded case of the petitioner in brief is that, while he had been serving a s LDA-cum-Typist in the office of the Joint Director, Health Services (T), SHTO, Assam, Narengi, Guwahati, he was, by order dated 07.12.2009 of the Director of Health Services, Assam, Hengrabari, Guwahati transferred in the same capacity an d placed at the disposal of the Joint Director, Health Services, Nalbari. On th e expiry of merely four months therefrom, by the impugned order dated 03.04.2010 the arrangement has been reversed and thereby the petitioner has been transferr ed back to the office of the Joint Director, Health Services (T), SHTO, Assam, N arengi, Guwahati, reinstalling the respondent No. 6 in the office of the Joint D irector, Health Services, Nalbari. Apart from the personal inconveniences cause d by the said order, the petitioner has alleged that the impugned order is a yie ld of extraneous considerations and undue favour shown to the respondent No. 6 b y the concerned departmental authorities at her instance. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The lea rned Standing Counsel, however, has produced the original records which reveal t hat after the order of transfer dated 07.012.2009 was passed, the respondent No. 6 submitted repeated representations before the departmental minister and the D irector of Health Services, Assam, requesting for her posting in the office of t he Joint Director, Health Services, Nalbari citing the reason of personal inconv eniences, more particularly, physical ailments of her father-in-law and the disl ocation in the academic pursuit of her minor daughter. That the service of her husband at Nalbari is non-transferable was also highlighted. On the very same d ate, i.e. 18.12.2009, a representation was also submitted by her father-in-law t o the Commissioner & Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Assam in t he same lines. The departmental Minister, as the official records reveal, marke d an endorsement on the respondent No. 6’s representation dated 18.12.2009 as he reinbelow: - DAS Pl do the Needful Sd/-, illegible Minister, Health & Family Welfare, Guwahati Development, Information Technology and Science & Technology Deptt. Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-6 The note sheet of the records show that the matter was thereafter processed in t he lines of the request made in the representation, culminating in the impugned order of transfer. Though, the petitioner before this Court contends that meanw hile being aggrieved by the impugned order of transfer, a representation by him has also been submitted on 17.04.2010 before the Director of Health Services, As sam, Hengrabari, Guwahati, the official records do not contain the same. Be that as it may, the official records in obvious terms reveal that the impugne d order of transfer has been passed acting on the repeated representations of th e respondent No. 6 and her father-in-law, as mentioned hereinabove. Noticeably, the order dated 07.12.2009, whereby, the respondent No. 6 had been posted in th e office of the Joint Director, Health Services (T), SHTO, Assam, Narengi, Guwah ati, had not been challenged by her in any legal forum. It is also not disputed that pursuant thereto, the petitioner had shifted himself along with his family members to Nalbari and had accordingly joined the post thereat. While the conc ern of the concerned departmental authority for the convenience of the employees of the organization, in the interest of administrative efficacy cannot, per se, be denounced as arbitrary and unwarranted, it is expected that in order to obvi ate the possibility of any resentment or misgiving, such an approach is to be as suredly fair and balanced. Incidentally, while passing the impugned order, the fact that the petitioner had already joined at Nalbari pursuant to the earlier o rder of transfer, though noticed, was not given due weightage. It was also over looked that his movement therefrom would entail detrimental consequences for him and his family as well. Though, meanwhile, the petitioner has submitted a repr esentation on 17.04.2010 before the Director of Health Services, Assam, Hengraba ri, Guwahati - 6, there is nothing on record that the same was attended to. Transfer being an incidence of service, the scope of interference therewith by t his Court in the exercise of its power of judicial power is otherwise very limit ed. This notwithstanding, as such an order is also by way of an administrative a ction, it essentially has to be fair, objective, transparent, reasonable and jus t. The facts and circumstances of the case do not, in the estimate of this Cour t, demonstrate that the impugned action is informed with such considerations. T he conduct of the respondent No.6 in not receiving the notice of the instant pro ceeding is an index of her defiant disposition towards a pending proceeding in a Court of law, which ought not to be encouraged in any manner whatsoever. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugne d order of transfer needs to be interfered with. Ordered accordingly. The impugned order dated 03.04.2010 is hereby annulled. The official respondent s would take immediate consequential steps. The petition is allowed in the abov e terms. No costs.