WP(C) 401/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA.. The two petitioners involved in these writ petitions are working under t he respondent-Marketing Board as Marketing Inspectors. Presently, they are post ed in the office located within Kamrup (Rural). Their home district is Kamrup. They are aggrieved by the annexure-P/3 order dated 12.1.2011, by which, while t he petitioner in WP(C) No.401/2011 has been transferred to Dumunichaki Check Gat e in the district of Darrang, the petitioner in WP(C) No.403/2011 has been trans ferred to Dhing R.M.C. in the district of Nagaon. While it is the case of the pe titioners that having regard to the earlier transfer and posting, they could not have been transferred once again even before the completion of 3 (three) years tenure of posting, the stand of the respondents is that the impugned order of tr ansfer dated 12.1.2011 has been issued as per the election guidelines in terms o f which the officers, who are connected or are likely to be connected with the c onduct of elections in the State should not serve in their home districts or pla ces where they have served for long. Further, no officer connected with election s, directly or indirectly should be allowed to continue in the present district of posting - (a) if she/he is posted in her/his home district or, (b) If she/he has completed three years in that district during the last four years or would b e completing three years on or before 31st March, 2011. Admittedly, the home district of both the petitioners is Kamrup. Howeve r, it is their stand that since their place of posting is Kamrup (Rural) they do not come within the purview of the election guidelines, more so, when they have not completed three years in the present place of posting. I have heard Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned counsel for the petitioners as wel l as Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mr. S. Samar ia, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Marketing Board. Mr. Samaria, learned Standing Counsel has produced the records pertainin g to the case, on perusal of which, it appears that the authority issued the imp ugned order of transfer transferring not only the petitioners but also as many a s 25 officers following the aforesaid election guidelines. It has been submitted that although the petitioners are presently posted in Kamrup (Rural) and their home district is Kamrup (Metro), but for administrative convenience and having r egard to the marketing divisions, both the districts are one and the same for th e purpose of election guidelines. The election guideline itself says that the officers, who are likely to be involved in election duties, directly or indirectly, should not be allowed to serve in their home districts or the districts in which, they have earlier work ed. The district of Kamrup has been bifurcated for administrative convenience in to two districts - Kamrup (Rural) and Kamrup (Metro). It being the admitted pos ition that the home district of both the petitioners is Kamrup (Metro), more par ticularly, their place of posting is presently in Kamrup (Rural), same will not make any difference. On perusal of the records produced by Mr. Samaria, learned Standing Coun sel appearing for the respondent-Marketing Board, I do not find any malafide and colourable exercise of power or violation of any statutory rules. The exercise towards issuing the impugned order of transfer has been carried out in routine m anner following due procedure. Situated thus, I am not inclined to interfere wit h the impugned order of transfer. However, as submitted by Mr. Konwar, learned counsel for the petitioners that th e transfer order having been issued to facilitate smooth conduct of election, on conclusion of the same, the authority should consider the case of the petitione rs for re-transferring them to their original place of posting, more particularl y, when they have not completed three years tenure of posting in their present p lace of posting. The respondents may consider that aspect of the matter in terms of the t ransfer guidelines and in exigencies of service. With the above observations, both the writ petitions stand disposed of.