WP(C) 1418/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA Heard Ms. A. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. S amaria, learned Standing Counsel, Assam State Agricultural Marketing Board. The petitioner, who is serving as Marketing Inspector in the Assam State Agricultural Marketing Board and presently posted at BG point under Guwahati Su b-divisional Marketing Committee (GSMC), is aggrieved by the order dated 28.1.20 11, by which he has been transferred to Houli Regulated Market Committee (RLC). He is also aggrieved by the subsequent order dated 11.2.2011 by which in modific ation of earlier order dated 28.1.2011, he has been transferred and posted at As sam State Agricultural marketing Board (HQ) instead of Houli RLC. Be it stated h ere that the home district of the petitioner is Kamrup (Rural) and his place of posting is in the district of Kamrup (M). The respondents have filed their counter affidavit in which they have brought o n record the representation dated 1.2.2011 submitted by the petitioner to the Ch ief Executive Officer of the Board, making a request therein to cancel the earli er transfer order dated 28.1.2011 and to post him in the Guwahati HO. Accepting the said request made by the petitioner, on the ground assigned in the said repr esentation, the respondent Board has issued the modified order dated 11.2.2011, accommodating the petitioner at Assam State Agricultural Marketing Board (HQ) at Guwahati. After having obtained the said order dated 11.2.2011 by making the af oresaid representation dated 1.2.2011, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging both the orders. In the writ petition, the petitioner has not even obliquely stated about the sai d representation dated 1.2.2011, in consideration of which the second impugned o rder dated 11.2.2011 has been passed. The petitioner himself having made the req uest for his posting at HQ on health ground and the respondents having acceded t o the said request, he cannot now turn around to question the very authority of the respondents towards issuance of the order dated 11.2.2011. Moreover, it was incumbent on the part of the petitioner to make mention about the making the afo resaid representation dated 1.2.2011 on the basis of which the second impugned o rder dated 11.2.2011 was passed. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and according ly it is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated