WA 137/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR HON BLE MR. JUSTICE K MERUNO The appellants are aggrieved by an order dated 24.3.2011 passed by a learned Sin gle Judge in WP(C) NO.1007/2011. The writ petitioner was a Professor in a Medical College and he was transferred from Guwahati to Dibrugarh by an order dated 9.2.2011. The writ petitioner joined service in Dibrugarh in Assam Medical College & Hospi tal. Soon thereafter, within eight days he was transferred from Dibrugarh to Jor hat. Feeling aggrieved by the sudden transfer, the writ petitioner preferred a writ p etition challenging the transfer order. The writ petition was allowed by the lea rned Single Judge and that is how the appellants are now before us. While dealing with the case, the learned Single Judge summoned the file relating to the transfer of the writ petitioner and on a perusal of the file it appears that there was absolutely no reason why within eight days of his joining at Dibr ugarh, the writ petitioner was transferred to Jorhat. On the other hand, respond ent No.6 in the writ petition, that is, Prof. AK Das, who was transferred from D ibrugarh to Jorhat was retained in Dibrugarh although he had been working at Dib rugarh since 1987. The learned Single Judge found that there was absolutely no discernible reason w hy the writ petitioner was transferred from Dibrugarh to Jorhat. There was also no reason for the retention of Prof. AK Das in Jorhat although his transfer was due much earlier. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that while the writ petiti oner was posted in Guwahati he had taken leave frequently on the ground of illne ss. While it may be so, if the writ petitioner was entitled to leave he could c ertainly avail of that leave. However, if the writ petitioner was not entitled t o leave and was unauthorizedly absent, the appellants should have taken discipli nary action against him, but did not take do so. Therefore, frequent absence of the writ petitioner is neither here nor there. It appears to us that there is no reason let alone any cogent reason for transfe rring the writ petitioner from Dibrugarh to Jorhat. The order of transfer within eight days is clearly arbitrary as rightly concluded by the learned Single Judg e and we find no reason to take a different view in the matter. In the circumstances, we find no merit in this writ appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.