WA 56/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY THE HON’BLE MR. JSUTICE AC UPADHYAY Amitava Roy, J Having unsuccessfully challenged the order dated 12.01.20011, passed by the Chie f Executive Officer, Assam State Agricultural Marketing Board, transferring the appellant to Dumunichaki Check Gate under Darrang DRMC, he is in appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.01.2011 passed in his writ petition being WP(C) No.401/2011. We have heard Mr. MK Choudhury, Senior Advocate for the appellant and Mr. KN Cho udhury, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. S Chamaria, Advocate for the Assam State Agricultural Marketing Board (hereafter for short referred to as the Board), re presenting the other respondents as well. The pleaded case of the appellant is that he is a Marketing Inspector of the Boa rd and had been transferred by the aforementioned impugned order in purported co mpliance of the guidelines of the Election Commission of India relatable to the impending general elections to the State Legislative Assembly inter alia of Assa m. In the perception of the appellant, he had been so transferred as he had been lodged at a station within his home district. According to him, neither the pla ce from where he has been transferred is within his home district nor he had the n completed even one year thereat and, thus, could not have been posted out in t he guise of implementing the aforementioned guidelines of the Election Commissio n. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, by the judgment and orde r, in assailment before us, had declined to interfere though, he noticed that th e home district of the petitioner was Kamrup (Metro) and that his place of posti ng from where he had been transferred was located within the jurisdictional limi ts of district Kamrup (Rural). It, according to him, made no decisive difference and that the impugnment was not tenable. It was noticed that the impugned order was also not vitiated by malafide or colourable exercise of power or transgress ion of any statutory norms. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant has emphasised that as admitted ly the petitioner at all relevant times was serving at a station in a district, which is not his home district, he could not have been transferred in the guise of adherence to the Election Commission norms. Drawing the attention of this Cou rt to an information provided by the Public Information Officer, RTI Section of the Board under the Right to Information Act, 2005, to the effect that the Kamru p (Metro) and Kamrup (Rural) were for all intents and purposes are being constru ed as separate districts by the Board, Mr. Choudhury has urged that on that grou nd alone the impugned order of transfer vis-a-vis the appellant ought to have be en interfered with. He has further contended that the appellant’s transfer is no t in public interest. Further, as he at the relevant time had not completed even one year of his tenure at the station from where he had been shifted out, the l earned Single Judge ought to have sustained the challenge. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the Board has argued that as per the Election Commission guidelines Kamrup (Metro) and Kamrup (Rural) are regarded co nstrued to be one district and, therefor, the plea to the contrary is unsustaina ble in law and on facts. As the appellant had been transferred in the process of implementation of a framework of transfers involving several other Marketing In spectors of the Board, his contentions repudiating the order to that effect vis- a-vis him lack in substance and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was perfect ly justified in negating the same. As transfer is an incidence of service, this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, ought not intervene, he urged . Mr. Choudhury also caused production of the relevant records. Noticeably, there is no dissension at the Bar that the impugned order of transfe r of the appellant is claimed by the respondent Board to have been made pursuant to the Election Commission guidelines. In terms thereof, officers, who are conn ected or are likely to be connected with the conduct of elections in the concern ed States should not serve in their home districts or places where they have ser ved for long and no officer connected with elections, directly or indirectly, is to be allowed to continue in the present district of posting: - a) If she/he is posted in her/his home district; or b) If she/he has completed three years in that district during the last four yea rs or would be completing 3 years on or before 31st March, 2011. Admittedly, at the time of his transfer, the appellant had not completed 3 years at the station from where he was posted out. A perusal of the official records demonstrate that he was sought to be transferred out of his home district. The p arties are not in issue that the home district of the appellant is Kamrup (Metro ) and that his place of posting before transfer was located within the territori al limits of Kamrup (Rural) district. Having regard to the contour of the debate, this Court through the learned Senio r Government Advocate, Assam, Gauhati High Court sought for a clarification as t o whether these two districts are treated differently or as one composite whole in the context of the Election Commission guidelines. In course of the arguments , the learned State Counsel apprised us on the basis of written instructions tha t Kamrup (Metro) and Kamrup (Rural) districts are construed to be independent of and different from each other for the purpose of implementation of the Election Commission guidelines. In the above view of the matter, the appellant’s transfer being solely on the co nsideration that he at the relevant time was posted at a station within his home district, the very foundation thereof appears to be non est. The finding of the learned Single Judge to the contrary, therefor, does not commend for acceptance . In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 28.01.2011 as well as the impugned order of transfer dated 12.01.2011 are set aside. No cos ts.