WP(C) 5228/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The decision of the respondent-Company conveyed by the office order No.25 dated 16.06.2010 transferring the petitioner from Chief Electrical Sub-Division - II t o Dhekiajuli Electrical Sub-Division - I, Dhekiajuli is under challenge in the i nstant proceeding. I have heard Mr. D.R. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned State Counsel and Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respond ent-Company. The pleaded account of the petitioner, is that he had joined as Sahayak under th e Assam State Electricity Board (hereinafter for short referred to as the Board) in the year 1976 in the office of the Electrical Sub-Division - I, Diphu and is presently residing in his official quarter alongwith his family. He is at pres ent serving as Switch Board Operator (hereinafter for short referred to as the S BO). According to him, the road laid within the colony where he resides alongwi th other staff and officials of the Board having been worn out, repair works the reof was sanctioned and a substantial amount therefor was earmarked by the conce rned authorities. Though, the works were started in the early part of 2010 unde r the supervision of the then Deputy Chief General Manager, ASEB, Diphu it was n ot properly administered resulting in resentment of the inhabitants of the colon y. According to the petitioner, this officer not only neglected the proper cond uct of the said work but also had a clandestine relation with two lady contracto rs. The petitioner alongwith other residents of the colony therefore raised obj ection against the quality of works. The petitioner has alleged that as a seque l thereto, the Deputy Chief General Manager before being transferred to Nagaon o n promotion ensured the ouster of the petitioner from Diphu to a far-flung stati on at Dhekiajuli. The petitioner has asserted that though the transfer order is dated 16.06.2010 it was not communicated to him and as a matter of fact he cont inued to serve even thereafter at Diphu till 13.07.2010. He was communicated th at letter dated 01.07.2010 on 14.07.2010 intimating him that pursuant to the imp ugned order of transfer, he had since been released from the establishment at Di phu. Referring to various newspaper reports disclosing the illegal and immoral a ctivities of the Deputy Chief General Manger concerned, the petitioner has assai led his transfer to be a punitive step by the respondent-Company at the instance of the said officer. Whereas, Mr. Gogoi has reiterated the above to contend that as the petitioner’s transfer is not in the exigencies of the Board’s services, the same ought to be quashed, Mr. Bhattacharjee relying on the official records pertaining to the iss ue has pleaded to the contrary. Having regard to the nature of the impugnment made and the limited scope of inte rference with an order of transfer passed by an administrative authority in the exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction of judicial review, it is considered appro priate to determine the tenability or otherwise of the petitioner’s contention o n the basis of the relevant records maintained in the official course of busines s. The records on scrutiny reveal that the petitioner’s transfer is based on an assessment of his performance in the discharge of his duties as well as his con duct at his earlier station at Diphu. On an evaluation of the materials availab le on the basis of administrative inputs, the Chief General Manager (D) APDCL (C AZ), Diphu decided to transfer him to Dhekiajuli Electrical Sub-Division in his same capacity as Slg.SBO against a post left vacant on the superannuation by its earlier incumbent Shri Babul Baishya. The records do not reveal at trace of mat erial to infer that his transfer, as above, had been in retaliation of the expre ssion of his resentment and displeasure against the quality of the works of the colony road supervised by the erstwhile Deputy Chief General Manager, Diphu. Th e petitioner does not dispute that he has been transferred to an equivalent vaca nt post. The impugned order discloses that the said arrangement is in the intere st of Company’s works. As referred to hereinabove the records also do not discl ose any material to the contrary to denounce impugned order of transfer was prom pted by extraneous considerations and/or mala fide. Admittedly, transfer is a c ondition of service of the petitioner. Having regard to the constricted scope of interference by this Court in the exer cise of its power of judicial review, the present is not considered to be a fit case to uphold the challenge of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition lacks in merit and is dismissed. No costs.