MC 1226/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Sri AC Buragohain, learned Additional Advocate General , Assam, in support of the prayer for vacation/modification/alteration as made in this Misc. Case. Also heard Sri D.Senapati, learned counsel for the opposite party /writ petition er. By this application vacation /modification /alteration of the interim or der dated 04.09.2006 passed in WP(C)No.4414/2006 has been prayed for. WP(C) No.4 414/2006 had been filed by the opposite party/ writ petitioner challenging an or der dated 31.08.2006 by which the petitioner, who was holding the post of Assist ant Executive Engineer, Gauhati East Water Resources Sub DivisionNo.1 was transf erred to Mangaldoi. The interim order dated 04.09.2006 passed in the said writ p etition is to the effect that statusquo with regard to the charge of the said of fice as on 04.09.2006 be maintained. The contentions advanced in support of the prayers made in the Misc, Case are to the effect that the petitioner had completed two years four months of service i n the post of Asstt. Executive Engineer, Gauhati East Water Resources Sub Divisi on No.1 and further in the administrative exigencies it is necessary to transfe r him. On the other hand, Sri Senapati, learned counsel for the opposite party writ pet itioner has contended that while WP(C) No.4416/2006 was pending, in spite of the interim order dated 04.09.2006, the Respondents had passed an order dated 04.03 .2008 transferring the petitioner to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, ( Technical Consultant) in the same office. This was done without the approval of the Court. Sri Senapati, learned counsel for the opposite party/ writ petitione r has further submitted that the order dated 04.03.2008 had been interfered with by this Court in another proceeding, i.e., WP(C) No.874 of 2008 filed by the pe titioner. In the aforesaid circumstances, and particularly in view of the conduct of the A pplicant State in passing the subsequent order of transfer dated 04.03.2008 duri ng the pendency of WP(C) No.4414 of 2006, serious doubt arises as to whether the prayers made in the Misc. Case are bonafide. This is because from one perspecti ve the order of transfer dated 31.08.2006 can be understood to be no longer surv iving in view of the subsequent transfer order dated 04.03.2008. Yet the Respond ent/ applicant State has filed the present application. The prayers made in th is Misc. Case, therefore, are capable of being construed to have been made to e nable a further transfer of the petitioner. However, all such questions will nee d to be considered at a full length hearing. I am, therefore, of the view that the interim order dated 04.09.2006 passed in W P(C) No.4414/2006 ought not to be vacated at this strage and instead WP(C) No.44 14/2006 should be listed for hearing at an early date. Therefore, the prayers ma de in the present Misc. Case are declined. Instead WP(C) No.4414/2006 shall be l isted for hearing on 03.06.2008. The Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of in terms of the above.