WP(C) 157/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. K. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, S.W. Department. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Annexure- 3 notification dated 7.1.20 11 issued by the Govt. of Assam in the Social Welfare Department by which severa l officers including the petitioner has been transferred to different places. Th e petitioner has been transferred from Nalbari to Kakopathar. The ground on whic h the writ petition was filed is that the petitioner having not completed three years of normal tenure at Nalbari he could not be transferred in violation of th e guidelines issued by the Govt. of Assam to that effect. Be it stated here that the petitioner would be completing three years at Nalbari in May/June, 2011. T he petitioner was earlier transferred to Nalbari by order dated 31.5.2008 and he joined on 7.6.2008. Thus, the petitioner is left with only two months of servic e to complete the tenure. In the affidavit-in-opposition the respondents have stated that the petitioner h as been transferred as there was some complaints against him. In this connection they have annexed the particular note dated 30.10.2010 addressed to the Ministe r, Social Welfare Department by the Minister, Revenue, D.M. etc, Assam. Be it s tated here that the Revenue Minister is the jurisdictional MLA. The respondents have also enclosed the documents to show that since the petitioner and similarly situated persons had not completed three years in the s tation but against whom there were complaints had to be transferred with the app roval of the Chief Minister. Mr. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, SWD has produced the file in which the impugned transfer order has been initiated and passed, on perusal of which what has emerged is that a proposal was made to transfer various officers catego rizing them under two categories - 1) who are required to be transferred as per the election guidelines and ii) another against whom there are complaints. The M inister, Social Welfare Department was apprised of the complaints against some o f the officers who had not completed three years. It is on that basis the file w as moved and eventually the Minister SWD, approved the proposal which was put to him after approval of the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in t he department. As some of the officers including the petitioner had not complet ed three years at Nalbari as per the guidelines formulated in this regard, the a pproval of the Chief Minister was required to be obtained. Accordingly the appro val of the Chief Minister was also obtained. It is on that basis several officers were transferred from one place to another. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner upon a reference to the af fidavit-in-reply as well as the documents produced by him during the course of hearing, submits that the petitioner has been victimized as he did not accede to the request made by the P.A. to the Minister, Social Welfare Department for a ppointing the persons named in the said documents. The petitioner has not alleged in the writ petition that impugned transf er order was passed by the respondent authorities on the ground of same being ba sed on malafide and colourful exercise of power. The only ground on which the wr it petition has been structured is that the petitioner having not completed thre e years at Nalbari, he could not have been transferred. As noticed above, the pe titioner is left with only two months to complete the said tenure of three years . Apart from the above, neither the Minister of Social Welfare nor the P/ A to the said Minister are party to this proceeding and thus no adverse orders can be passed against those persons on the basis of the documents produced durin g the course of hearing. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 7. 01.2011 and accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. However, it would op en for the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for his retenti on till 31st of May, 2011, if the same is possible. It will be pertinent to mention here that this Court in the case of Smti . Parveen Ahmed, CDPO, who was also transferred on the same ground declined to interfere with the transfer order and dismissed the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 267/2011 vide order dated 23.3.2011.