WA 233/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.UPADHYAY (Ranjan Gogoi, J) Heard Mr D Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant who is the 6th respondent in WP(C) No. 2628/2010 challenge s the order dated 21.5.2010 passed in the said writ petition by which order the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent in the appeal (writ petitioner) was al lowed and the order dated 3.4.2010 was set aside by the Court. The relevant facts that will be required to be noticed may be set out in a nutshell: The 1st respondent in the appeal (writ petitioner) and the present appel lant (respondent No.6 in the writ petition) are LDA-cum-Typists working in the r espective Joint Directorate of Health Services. By an order dated 7.12.2009, the 1st respondent was transferred from Guwahati to Nalbari and the appellant was t ransferred from Nalbari to Guwahati. While the 1st respondent joined in his new place of posting, the appellant as well as her father-in-law submitted represent ations to different authorities in the Health Department for restoration of her posting prior to the order dated 7.12.2009. On the said representations the Hon’ ble Departmental Minister ordered for doing the needful . Consequently, an orde r dated 3.4.2010 was passed by which the earlier position was restored. The afor esaid order dated 3.4.2010 was subjected to challenge by the 1st respondent in t he writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 2628/2010. The said writ petition having been al lowed and the order dated 3.4.2010 having been interfered with, the present appe al has been filed. Mr Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the i nitial transfer order dated 7.12.2009 violates the legal rights of the appellant under the transfer policy in vogue, inasmuch as, under the relevant Government Notifications there can be no inter district transfer of incumbents in Grade-III and IV posts. That apart, Mr Choudury has submitted that the personal inconven iences of the appellant in working at Guwahati were duly considered by the depar tmental authorities who after such consideration had restored the earlier positi on by the order dated 3.4.2010. It is the submission of Mr Choudhury that the de partment is bound to take into account the inconveniences of the employees and t his is precisely what was done in the present case. Mr Choudhury has also submit ted that by virtue of the order dated 7.12.2009 the appellant would suffer conse quential loss of seniority. The appellant had nowhere challenged the order dated 7.12.2009 and had, in fact, approached the departmental authorities including the Hon’ble Minister for modification of the said order. If any legal right of the appellant was viol ated by the order dated 7.12.2009, as now alleged, the appellant ought to have a vailed of the legal remedies provided to her by law to vindicate such rights. Th at apart, the learned Single Judge while acknowledging that is the bounden duty of the department to consider the inconveniences of its employees, took note of the fact that the proper balancing of the relevant facts was not done in the pre sent case, inasmuch as, the 1st respondent (writ petitioner) had moved to Nalbar i with his family and had actually joined the post to which he was transferred b y the order dated 7.12.2009. In the aforesaid facts, we do not see how the eventual view taken by the learned Single Judge, particularly in the context of the limited powers of this Court in matters relating to transfer, can be faulted with. We are, therefore, of the view that this writ appeal ought not to be admitted for regular hearing. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed, however, without imposing any cos t.