WP(C) 5469/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. P.B. Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as M r. J. Patowary, learned SC, PWD. The petitioner is the Executive Engineer, PWD, Umrangso NEC Division, is aggrieved by Annexure-1 notification dated 21.09.2010 by which he has been tran sferred and posted as Executive Engineer (C), PWD in the office of the Addl. Chi ef Engineer, PWD Hills, Diphu w.e.f. the date of taking over charge against the existing vacancy. In terms of the said notification, he is to hand over the char ge to the senior most A.E.E. of the Division. According to the petitioner, apart from the fact that he is subjected to frequent transfer, the impugned order dat ed 21.09.2010 has been issued only to accommodate the respondent No. 6 who was e arlier transferred to Diphu vide notification dated 16.11.09. Although pursuant to the said notification he was to join at Diphu, but he did not do so. Accordin g to the petitioner, since the respondent No. 6 did not join at Diphu, the petit ioner has been picked for such transfer to Diphu. This Court while entertaining the writ petition on 29.09.2010 directed to maintain the status quo with the request to Mr. J. Patowary, learned SC, PWD to produce the file in which the impugned order dated 21.09.2010 has been issued . Today Mr. Patowary while producing certain records, submits that other related records have been placed in W.P.(C) No. 3616/2010 (Pabitra Kr. Das Vs. State of Assam and Ors.) and the same is also related to transfer matter. According to Mr. Patowary, learned SC, PWD, the petitioner has been tran sferred from the present place due to certain complaints received against him. O n the other hand, Mr. Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the complaints are the basis for issuing the transfer order, the petitioner o ught to have heard. Considering the limited scope of interference in the matter of transfer of Govt. officials exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petition is disposed of providing that the p etitioner may within one week from today, prefer a representation to the respond ent authority against the impugned transfer order dated 21.09.2010. In the event of making such a representation, the said authority, i.e. the respondent No. 2, may take on record the said representation and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order as expeditiously as possible. Till disposal of the representat ion, the order of status quo passed earlier, shall continue.