WP(C) 4025/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA Heard Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned State Counsel. The petitioner, who is presently serving as Forester Grade-I is aggrieve d by the Annexure-B order dated 30.5.2011 issued by the DFO, Social Forestry Div ision, Golaghat, by which the petitioner was relieved from Social Forestry Divis ion, Golaghat, on the afternoon of 30.5.2011 for temporary protection duty to co ntrol the increasing pressure of poachers and to cope up with the flood situatio n in Kaziranga National Park w.e.f. 1.6.2011 to 30.9.2011, for four months. Purs uant to the said order, the Forest Range Officer, Social Forestry Range, Sarupet har, released the petitioner w.e.f. 1.7.2011. Being aggrieved, the petitioner ma de Annexure-D representation dated 4.6.2011 to the DFO, Social Forestry Division , Golaghat stating therein that he was not in a position to join the deputed pos t as he was under treatment at Golaghat Kushal Konwar Govt. Hospital. The said r epresentation was followed by Annexure-E representation dated 18.6.2011 made to the local MLA by the daughter of the petitioner, urging upon her to interfere in the matter permitting stay of her father at Golaghat. Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned State Counsel, has been furnished with the w ritten instruction. The said written instruction speaks of deputing frontline st affs for protection duty to control the increasing pressure of poachers and to c ope up with the flood situation in the Kaziranga National Park for four months. Such arrangement was necessary considering the flood situation in the part and f or protection of the wild animals from the poachers due to limited staff at Kazi ranga National Park. Above temporary arrangement for a period of four months as reflected in the written instruction as well as in the impugned order was necessary in the in terest of the wild animals of the Kaziranga National Park. It being not a case o f any permanent transfer or deputation, without the consent of the petitioner bu t the arrangement being only temporary in the exigencies of service, I am of the considered opinion that no interference is called for to the impugned order. Co nsequently, the writ petition is dismissed.