WP(C) 4785/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. BC Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioner; Mr. I Choudhury, le arned Standing Counsel, PWRD appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. DK Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for all the respondent No.4. As agreed to by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself. The petitioner by the present petition has challenged the order of transfer date d 1st September, 2011 issued by the under Secretary to the Government of Assam, PWRD (Estt. B) Branch transferring the petitioner from Doboka RR Sub-Division un der Nagaon RR Division to Guwahati NEC Sub-Division-II under Kampur NEC Division as AEE(C) vice the respondent No.4 transferred in his place. The ground on which the transfer order initially put to challenge was that there is violation of the guideline dated 19th September, 1992, which was revised on 4th February, 2002, issued by the Government of Assam in the matter of transfer, inasmuch as the approval of the Chief Minister has not been obtained before pas sing such order, which is required, because the petitioner has not completed the normal tenure of posting of 3(three) years. By filing subsequent affidavit, it has also been contended by the petitioner that since he has been entrusted with the duty relating to the revision of electoral roll, the transfer order cannot be made effective without approval of the Chief Electoral Officer, Assam in view of the communication dated 21st October, 2011 (Annexure-B to the affidavit-in-r eply filed by the petitioner). Mr. Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petiti oner has been transferred just to accommodate the respondent No.4 in his place a nd at the instance of the local MLA. It has also been stated that there is no v iolation of the aforesaid guideline issued inasmuch as the authority did not tak e the approval of the Chief Minister, as required under the guideline. The lear ned senior counsel further submits that it is evident from the communication dat ed 21st October, 2011 issued by the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Assam that t hough the petitioner has been transferred prior to the issuance of the said comm unication, he cannot be released without the prior approval of the Chief Elector al Officer as the petitioner was entrusted with the summary of revision of elect oral rolls. Mr. Choudhury, learned standing counsel, PWRD, on the other hand, has submitted that though the petitioner cannot claim the right on violation of the guideline, in fact in the present case, the Chief Minister’s approval was obtained, as the petitioner did not complete 3(three) years service in the station in question. It has also been submitted that the order of transfer has been passed in public interest and in administrative exigencies, which may not be interfered with by this Court. The learned standing counsel further submits that since the order o f transfer was passed before issuance of the communication dated 21st October, 2 011, no prior approval of the Chief Electoral Officer is required to be obtained . Mr. Misra, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.4 has also submitted tha t the petitioner cannot file the writ petition alleging violation of the guideli ne issued, as those are not statutory guideline. It has also been submitted tha t since the order of transfer has been passed with the approval of the Chief Min ister and in public interest and in administrative exigencies, the same does not require any interference. Mr. Misra further submits that obtaining the approva l of the Chief Electoral Officer is necessary in case the person is directly con nected to summary revision of electoral roll before passing the transfer order. But in the instant case, the petitioner could not produce any proof relating to entrustment of any duty for summary revision of electoral roll, even before iss uance of the order of transfer. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parti es and also perused the pleadings of the parties. The basic challenge to the order of transfer dated 1st September, 2011 initially was the violation of the aforesaid guidelines, which requires taking approval o f the Chief Minister before passing the order of transfer, in case an officer so ught to be transferred, has not completed the normal tenure of 3(three) years. A Division Bench of this Court in Kalyan Kr. Sarkar -Vs- Alok Kanti Paul Choudhu ry & Ors. reported in 2006 (3) GLT 624 placing reliance on the decision of the A pex Court has held that the office memorandums relating to the transfer guidelin e are not enforceable in law, those being merely the guidelines and having no st atutory force and no right can be claimed on such guideline. It also appears that the Chief Minister’s approval, as required under the said g uideline has been obtained before passing of the order of transfer dated 19th Au gust, 2011. That being the position, the first ground on which the order of tra nsfer has been put to challenge cannot be accepted. It appears from the communication dated 21st October, 2011 (Annexure-B to the af fidavit-in-reply of the petitioner) that the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer has directed all the Deputy Commissioners and Sub-Divisional Officers, who are the D EOs (District Electoral Officer) not to release any person pursuant to the order of transfer issued, if they are directly connected to summary revision of elect oral rolls, without obtaining specific approval of the Chief Electoral Officer, Assam. The said communication has not been put to challenge by anyone in the pr esent proceeding. Reading of the said communication reveals that the same is ap plicable even to the transfer orders issued earlier, provided the person concern ed was connected to summary revision of electoral rolls. It is not certain in t he present case whether the petitioner has been entrusted with any duty relating to the summary revision of electoral roll, even prior to passing of the transfe r order dated 1st September, 2011. That being the position, while refusing to interfere with the transfer order dat ed 1st September, 2011, it is, however, directed that the Commissioner and Speci al Secretary, PWRD shall, before making the order of transfer dated 1st Septembe r, 2011 effective, obtain necessary approval from the Chief Electoral Officer. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.