WP(C) 839/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Mr D Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr S Samaria, learned counsel for the respondents. The records in original placed before the Court have also been perused. The petitioner who is an Assistant Executive Engineer assails an order d ated 20.2.2009 by which he has been transferred from Diphu and posted at Hailaka ndi. By the same order, the respondent No. 6, an Assistant Executive Engineer, H ojai has been transferred to Diphu in place of the petitioner. Mr D Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the p etitioner had joined in the post of Executive Engineer at Diphu pursuant to an o rder dated 29.2.2008. Such joining pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 29.2.20 08 was on 6.3.2008. The learned counsel, therefore, contends that there is no so und basis for the impugned transfer. Furthermore, it is contended by referring t o certain medical reports enclosed to the writ petition that the petitioner is a iling and, as such, his transfer at the present juncture would not be correct. The materials laid before the Court by the learned counsel for the respo ndents indicate that the petitioner was posted in Diphu by an order dated 1.12.2 005 and he joined in Diphu sometime in January, 2006. The said materials also in dicate that by the order dated 29.2.2008, the petitioner who is an Assistant Exe cutive Engineer, has been allowed to hold the additional charge of Additional Di rector of Agriculture at Diphu in addition to his own duties. The petitioner, ac cording to the respondent Department, has been in Diphu for over three years now and, therefore, his case would be attracted by the guidelines laid down by the Election Commission for transfer of officers who have completed more than three years in one station. As the petitioner undisputedly has been in Diphu at least from January, 2006, the Court, on due consideration, finds that his case will be covered by th e guidelines laid down by the Election Commission for transfer of officers prio r to the forthcoming parliamentary elections. In so far as the second ground urged by the petitioner is concerned, it will be suffice to observe that the Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not determine the correctness of the tr ansfer order from the standpoint of the present medical condition of the petitio ner and the matter should be left to the wise discretion of the authority. The Court, therefore, finds no good ground to entertain this writ petiti on. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed, however, without imposing any cost.