WP(C) 3614/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE IA ANSARI Heard Mr. T Bikash, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. D Saikia , learned Standing counsel, Health Department, appearing on behalf of the respon dent Nos. 1 to 4. With the help of this writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Const itution of India, the petitioner has put to challenge the order, dated 14-06-201 0 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), whereby the petitioner, who while functioni ng as Medical Officer (Homoeo), in the Capital Dispensary, at Dispur, stands tra nsferred to Sonapur PHC and the incumbent, namely, the respondent No. 5, at Sona pur PHC, has been transferred to the post to which the petitioner had been holdi ng. The petitioner contends that he has been transferred in less than a period o f three years from the date of his previous posting and that too, without approv al of the Chief Minister of the State, though the policy guidelines issued, in t his regard, stipulate that no Government servant shall be transferred within a p eriod of three years from the date of his posting at any given place except with the approval of the Chief Minister. It is also alleged by the petitioner that t he impugned transfer order is mala fide. While considering the grievances of the petitioner that the State respon dents have violated the policy decision of the Government as aforesaid, it may b e pointed out that this Court has already held that the guidelines, as regards t he transfer policy, do not vest, in any of the Government servant, any indefeasi ble right, though, ordinarily, a transfer shall be made consistent with the Gove rnment policy and shall not be arbitrarily deviated from. In the present case, the petitioner came to be posted, at Capital State Dispensa ry, at Dispur, on 10-08-2007 and the impugned transfer order has been made almos t after 2 years and 10 months of his posting at the Capital State Dispensary, at Dispur. In such circumstances, the bare fact that the impugned transfer order h as been passed, before the expiry of another period of two months, would not war rant interference by this Court, particularly, when the petitioner has not been able to give any particulars indicating that the impugned transfer order has bee n made with ulterior motive. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has placed, on record, a letter, dated 27-04 -2010, whereby the Minister, Social Welfare and Jails, Government of Assam, has requested the Commissioner and Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Assam, to retain the petitioner in the Capital State Dispensary. T he letter aforementioned indicates that the petitioner is seeking political inte rference in the matter of his transfer and that too, by a person, who is unconne cted with the Department concerned. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this Court do es not find that the petitioner has been able to make out any case warranting th is Court’s interference by invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Co nstitution of India. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is not a dmitted and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. No order as to costs.