MC 2464/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Ms. D. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the applicant/respondent No.9 and Sri P. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the O.P./writ petitioner. Al so heard Sri K. Das, learned Standing Counsel, B.T.C. By this application the applicant seeks vacation/ modification/ alteration of th e interim order of the Court dated 17.7.2008. The relevant facts may first be noticed. By an order dated 11.4.2008 the writ pe titioner, Sri Bhagawan Das, was transferred as a Science Teacher to the Shankard ev Mission M. E. School, Udalguri against the vacancy caused by the death of one Barnali Barman who was holding the post. The said order was passed by the BTC a uthority. Subsequently by another order dated 30.6.2008 passed by the Director o f Elementary Education the respondent No.9 was transferred to the same school i. e. Shankardev Mission M.E. School. As the order dated 30.6.2008 did not give an alternative posting to the writ petitioner the said order was assailed by the wr it petitioner before this Court in WP(C) No.2950/2008. By an interim order dated 17.7.2008 this Court had thought it appropriate to stay operation of the later order dated 30.6.2008. While the aforesaid interim order dated 14.7.2008 passed by the Court was holdin g the field the Secretary, BTC, passed an order dated 5.8.2008 cancelling the pe titioner’s transfer order dated 11.4.2008. As the said action had the potential of over-reaching the interim order of the Court dated 14.7.2008 notice was issue d to the Secretary BTC to explain his actions. Pursuant to the order of the Court issuing notice to the Secretary, BTC, the sai d authority has filed an affidavit dated 11th of November 2008 wherein he has ex pressed his regrets for passing the order dated 5.8.2008 which is sought to be a ttributed to inadvertence. In the affidavit filed, the Secretary, BTC, has also expressed his unconditional apology for what has been described as an unintentio nal and unintended error. In view of the explanation furnished and the apology t endered and also having regard to the fact that the position has now been rectif ied by a subsequent order dated 5.11.2008 which has been brought on record, the Court is of the view that the above matter need not be pursued any further. Insofar as the prayer of the applicant/ respondent No.9 for vacation/modificatio n/ alteration of the interim order dated 14.7.2008 is concerned, the Court has n oticed that by the said interim order operation of the subsequent transfer order of a second incumbent i.e. Respondent No.9 to the same post, which was already held by the writ petitioner, has been stayed by this Court. No convincing reaso n has been advanced before the Court for vacation/ modification/ alteration of t he order. The said prayer therefore is declined. However, taking note of the sta tements made by Ms. D. Saikia, learned counsel for the applicant/respondent No.9 that the said applicant/respondent is presently without any posting and is goin g without salary, the Court is of the view that the respondents in the writ peti tion should be directed to forthwith give a suitable posting to the applicant/re spondent No.9 and to pay to her arrear and current salary without any delay. The above arrangement, naturally, will be subject to such orders, as may be finally passed in the writ petition. The Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of.