WP(C) 2712/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also Mr Deb Chou dhury, learned Govt. Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh. The challenge is to the order dated 22.6.2009 of the District Agricultur e Officer, West Kameng District, Bomdila transferring the petitioner from Diran g to Balemu under ADO, Kalaktang. The petitioner who had joined as Agriculture Field Assistant (Junior) in February, 2007 under the District Agriculture Officer, West Kameng District, Bo mdila, Arunachal Pradesh was ,by order dated 30.1.2009 transferred from Barbu/Ra hang to Thrisino. As the petitioner at the relevant time was in her family way, she submitted a representation. It appears that the state respondents did not in sist on her movement pursuant to the order of transfer and eventually, on 12.6.2 009 the same was cancelled and she was allowed to continue at her earlier place of posting. By the order impugned, she has now been transferred to Balemu. Mr Upadhyaya has urged that the earlier order of transfer having been ca ncelled only on 12.6.2009, the impugned order of transfer passed closed on its h eels is on the face of the records not in public interest. On instructions, he s ubmits that the impugned order of transfer is at the behest of the local MLA and therefore not in administrative exigency as well. The learned counsel has argue d that as the petitioner as on date has not completed her tenure of three years at her earlier place of posting, the order of transfer is violative of the trans fer guidelines in force and ought to be interfered with. The learned Govt. Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh has argued that , transfe r being an incidence of service, considering the restricted scope of scrutiny by this Court, no interference is called for. He has dismissed the allegation of unauthorized intervention of the local MLA. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the averments made in the petition supported by an affidavit, this Court is n ot convinced that its intervention is called for. Apart from the fact that the transfer is an incidence of service, the materials on record disclose a compass ionate approach of the respondent authorities vis a vis the petitioner so much so that not only there was no insistence on their part to cause her movement in terms of the earlier order of transfer, the same was also cancelled on 12.6 .2009. The fact that the impugned order of transfer hasbeen passed within 10 day s of the cancellation of the earlier order per se , does not in the opinion of this Court ,render the same invalid. Be that as it may, it would be open for the petitioner to submit a representatio n against the impugned order of transfer before the authorities and if it is so done, needless to say, that the same would be considered in accordance with law. The petition stands closed in the above terms. No costs.