WP(C) 2773/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. Mahanta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ghosh , learned State Counsel for the respondent No. 1, 3 and 6. Also heard Mr. A. K. Goswami, learned Sr. Standing Counsel, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, for the respondents 2, 4 and 5. For the order proposed to be passed, it is not consider ed necessary to issue notice on the respondent No. 7. Shortly put the petitioner’s pleaded case is that after having j oined as a Ranger with the Kamrup Soil Conservation Division, under the State of Assam, he was promoted as Assistant Soil Conservation Officer in 2001 and was p osted in the Office of the Director of Soil Conservation, Assam. In the year 200 6, he was transferred in the same capacity in the Diphu S.C. Division within the territorial limits of the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council (hereafter referred to as the Council). On 1/7/2008, he was allowed to hold the additional charge of the office of the Divisional Officer, Diphu Soil Conservation Division, consequ ent upon the transfer of the earlier incumbent. By order dated 17/7/2008, Shri C .R. Das, Divisional Officer, Hamren S.C. Division, Hamren, having been transferr ed as Divisional Officer, Diphu S.C. Division, the petitioner was made to hold t he temporary charge of the office of the Divisional Officer, Hamren S.C. Divisio n, Hamren, following such transfer. By the notification dated 19/6/2009, the res pondent No. 7 has now been transferred and posted as Divisional Soil Conservatio n Officer, Hamren S.C. Division, Hamren. Resultantly, the impugned order has bee n passed relieving the petitioner of his additional charge of the said office. Mr. Mahanta has urged that the impugned order is untenable in la w and on facts being violative of the transfer guidelines, which stipulates the concurrence of the authorities of the Council within the territorial limits of w hich a State Government employee is sought to be transferred as a condition prec edent. The learned Counsel has further argued that in view of the frequent bandh s in the area, the petitioner could not submit a representation before the appro priate authorities highlighting his grievance against the order impugned. Mr. Goswami has pointed out from the documents annexed to the pe tition that the petitioner has no subsisting right to continue as the Divisional Soil Conservation Officer, Hamren, and that as following the concurrence of the authorities of the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, the respondent No. 7 has b een posted as such, his (petitioner) grievance against the order impugned is mis conceived. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a consid eration of the averments made in the writ petition and the documents annexed, th is Court does not feel persuaded to intervene. However, as the petitioner is sai d to be inclined to submit a representation against the order impugned, he is le ft at liberty to do so, if he is so advised. Needless to say, if such a represen tation is submitted, the same would be considered and disposed of by the authori ties concerned in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not made any comment on the merits of the case and it would be exclusively within th e domain of the authorities concerned to take a decision in accordance with law.