WP(C) 3834/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY In challenge is the order dated 03.09.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development, Assam staying the transfer of the Respondent No.7 to Dotom a Development Block under DRDA, Kokrajhar from Jalah Development Block under DRD A Barpeta and modifying the petitioner’s transfer to Jalah Development Block vio lating the order dated 19.06.2009 passed earlier. Responding to the challenge, this Court by order dated 07.09.2009 had restrained the said authorities from im plementing the order impugned. I have heard Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.J. Ghosh, l earned State Counsel, Mr. K. Das, learned Standing Counsel, BTC and Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for Respondent No.7. Briefly, stated the petitioner’s case is that while posted as Accountant, Mandia Development Block under DRDA, Barpeta he was by order dated 19.06.2009 of the C ommissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development, Assam transferred and posted at Jala h Development Block vice the Respondent No.7 thereby posting him out to Dotoma D evelopment Block under DRDA, Kokrajhar. Pursuant to the said order, the petitio ner was released from Mandia Development Block on 23.07.2009 and reported for du ties at the Jalah Development Block on 28.07.2009. The Respondent No.7 similarl y, was released from the Jalah Development Block, so as to enable him to join at Dotoma Development Block. Though, initially the authorities of the Bodoland Ter ritorial Council(hereinafter for short referred to as the BTC), Kokrajhar had s ome reservation with regard to the exchange, eventually, by its letter dated 27 .08.2009 it accorded its concurrence to the arrangement. It was at this stage th at the impugned order was passed. The official respondents have not filed their affidavit, but have placed relevan t records at the disposal of learned State Counsel. The Respondent No.7 in his m iscellaneous application (Registered as Misc. Case No.2510/2009), has inter alia pleaded that on receipt of the letter dated 27.08.2009 from the BTC, Kokrajhar, the Project Director, DRDA, Baska, Musholpur, Barpeta, Assam required him to ha ndover charge of the office of the Accountant Jalah Development Block at the ear liest. To this, the answering respondent contended that as the audit works were in progress, he would require sometime to wind up his activities at the Jalah D evelopment Block. The impugned order according to him, was passed on that consi deration and therefore, in public interest. Dr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that on the face of the records, the order dated 19.06.2009 whereby the petitioner had been transferred to Jalah Development Block was implemented on and from 28.07.2009 and for that m atter on 27.08.2009 on receipt of the concurrence of the BTC and thus the impugn ed order purportedly modifying the same(19.06.2009) is illegal and non est in la w. While contending that no good ground cognizable in law, exists to validate the impugned order, the learned counsel has urged that it being apparent that th e arrangement now sought to be put in place is to accommodate the Respondent No. 7, judicial intervention is called for, in the interest of justice. Mr. Ghosh, relying on the official records has argued that the impugned order is in public interest and therefore no interference is called for. Mr. Dhar, while assiduously supporting the order impugned has argued that as the retention of the Respondent No.7 at Jalah Development Block is in the interest of public service, the challenge is untenable in law and therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed. The Respondent No.7 having been held back at Jalah, DRDA to complete the official works, the plea of extraneous consideration is mi sconceived. The rival pleadings and arguments have been duly evaluated. The parties are not in dispute that the order impugned was preceded by one dated 19.06.2009, whereby the petitioner had been transferred from Mandia Development Block to Jalah Deve lopment Block and that the Respondent No.7 was thereby diverted from the Jalah D evelopment Block to the Dotoma Development Block. There is no material on record to controvert the petitioner’s assertion that pursuant to the said order he had been released from Mandia Development Block and in fact reported for duty on 28 .07.2009 at the Jalah Development Block. Though, it has been submitted at the B ar that the transfer of the petitioner and the Respondent No.7 to be legally imp lemented, the approval of the concerned authorities of the BTC is a necessary pr e-condition, in the face of such ratification as is evident from the letter date d 27.08.2009 of the Joint Secretary, Bodoland Territorial Council, Kokrajhar, th e same would not detain this Court on this plea. The official records reveal that while the process was lying at that stage and t he petitioner had, in fact joined the Jalah Development Block on 28.07.2009, the Departmental Minister intervened and directed the stay of the transfer of the R espondent No.7 to Dotoma Development Block. Though, initially the departmental a uthorities offered some resistance, eventually they had to submit to the dominio n of the Departmental Minister. The records do not disclose as contended by the Respondent No.7 any material to suggest that he had been retained at Jalah Deve lopment Block in the interest of public service. True it is that the Department al Minister in a limited way, may in the exigencies of service and public intere st have his/her say in such a process of transfer, but in the conspicuous facts as revealed by the records the manner of his intervention without any justificat ion whatsoever has to be construed to be an unwarranted, interference with the a dministrative exercise otherwise under taken to cater to public service. In the above view of the matter, having regard to the rival pleadings and the di sclosures from the official records, this Court holds the impugned order of tran sfer as vitiated by extraneous considerations and uncalled for interference of t he Departmental Minister. In view of the above, the impugned order is unsustain able in law and therefore is interfered with. The petition is allowed. No costs.