WA 150/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BD AGARWAL Roy, Amitava,J. 23.08.2011 The judgment and order dated 08.04.2011, rendered in WP(C) No. 1073/2011 dismiss ing the challenge to the notification dated 10.01.2011, so far as it relates to the transfer of the appellant herein from Guwahati to Titabor as Finance & Accou nts Officer is the subject matter of scrutiny in the instant appeal. We have heard Mr. BC Das, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and SC Key al, Advocates for the appellant and Ms. A Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Finan ce Department, Assam for the official respondents. For the order proposed to be passed, it is considered inessential to issue forma l notice to the other respondents. The pleaded case of the appellant/writ petitioner, in short, is that, in terms o f the notification No.FEB.151/2001/118, dated 01.01.2004 of the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Finance Department, he was appointed to officiate temporarily a s Finance & Accounts Officer in the Class-I (Grade-III) of the Assam Finance Ser vice and was posted in the said capacity in the office of the Director General o f Police, Guwahati, Assam in an existing vacant post. While he was functioning a s such, by the impugned notification dated 10.01.2011, he was transferred as abo ve. Being aggrieved thereby, he approached this Court with WP(C) No.1073/2011 pr ojecting the following pleas: - i) As Finance & Accounts Officer in the office of the Director General of Police , Guwahati, Assam he is associated with the investigation of a huge scam includi ng 3rd and 10th Police Battalion and that his transfer would potentially affect the process. ii) His old and aged mother would be left abandoned thereby and that the academi c pursuit of his daughter would be adversely affected. iii) He being the Joint Secretary of the Federation of the State Government Empl oyees, he is exempted from transfer under the departmental guidelines. The official respondents in their affidavit have contended that the petitioner’s transfer was incompliance of the Election Commission guidelines in connection t herewith and also taking into account the fact that he had been serving in the o ffice of the Director General of Police, Guwahati, Assam, since 2004 and that he thus was over due therefor as per the existing Rules. It has been further asser ted that the incumbent, who had been holding the post of Treasury Officer, Titab or had handed over charge of the said office to join a new place of posting and that a makeshift arrangement has been made whereunder the SDO, (Civil) is in-cha rge of the said Treasury. The necessity of posting of a regular Treasury Officer from the Assam Finance Service at Titabor has been underlined. By order dated 25.05.2011, this Court in the instant appeal left the appellant a t liberty to make a representation to the respondents to reconsider his transfer . The representation was filed by him on 01.06.2011 and the same was rejected vi de notification No. FEB.21/2011/45, dated 07.06.2011 issued by the Joint Secreta ry, Finance (Estt.-B) Department, Dispur. The facts bearing on these development s have been brought on record by an additional affidavit filed by the appellant. Mr. BC Das, has argued that the State elections being long over, the very basis of the transfer of the appellant has become non-existent and thus the impugned judgment and order warrants interference. Drawing the attention of this Court to the letters dated 27.01.2011, 01.02.2011 and 04.02.2011 of the Inspector Genera l of Police (A), Assam, Guwahati, Addl. Director General of Police-cum-Director of Fire Service, SFSO, Assam, Guwahati and Director General of Police, Assam, Gu wahati respectively, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has argued tha t as would be apparent therefrom, his services are urgently required at the pres ent place of posting in public interest and, therefore, the impugned notificatio n, so far as it relates to the appellant, not being in the interest of public se rvice the same ought to be quashed. Mr. Das has questioned the tenability of the decision rejecting the appellant’s representation to be a yield of total non-ap plication of mind. The learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, in reply has argued that as ad mittedly the appellant at the time of his transfer had completed more than three years at Guwahati, no interference with the impugned action is called for. The notification dated 10.01.2011 having been issued by the Finance Department in ad ministrative control over the appellant and it being best judge to evaluate his utility qua a post, the request made by the other State authorities for his rete ntion is not binding. The impugned transfer of the petitioner having been made i n public interest and in full compliance of the relevant guidelines pertaining t o government servants, the learned Single Judge had rightly declined to interfer e therewith, she urged. Ms. Verma in endorsement of her arguments laid before th is Court the relevant official records relating to the appellant’s transfer. We have considered the pleadings available on record and the submissions made on the basis thereof. There is no denial of the fact that at the time of his trans fer, the appellant had completed more than three years of service as Finance & A ccounts Officer, in the office of the Director General of Police, Assam at Guwah ati. That the appellant is a member of the Assam Finance Service under the admin istrative control of the Finance (Estt.-B) Department of the State, is also a ma tter of record. A perusal of the relevant records reveals that the appellant’s t ransfer was a part of the Scheme for posting out of officers of the Finance Depa rtment of the State in terms of the Election Commission of India guidelines rega rding transfer and posting of officers, who had completed three years in the sam e district in the preceding four years. The records disclose that on the request made by the Director General of Police, Assam, vide his letter dated 04.02.2011 for the retention of the appellant in his office, it had been observed that his (appellant’s) transfer had been stayed earlier on the same ground. The represen tation filed by the Association has also been taken note of. The series of trans fers including that of the appellant as proposed by the Commissioner & Secretary , Finance Department, had been duly approved by the Chief Minister of the State. The proposal clearly noticed that the appellant had completed more than three y ears of service in the office of the Director General of Police, Assam, Guwahati . The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order has duly considered the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant to negate the same on the reas ons recorded. The notification dated 07.06.2011 containing the decision of the r ejection of the appellant’s representation clearly emphasizes on the duration of his stay at Guwahati since 2004 and the needfulness to perform as the Treasury Officer. The appellant’s plea that his further retention is justified at Guwahat i in the face of the above revelations lacks persuasion. The relevant official r ecords do not disclose any impertinent consideration to conclude that his transf er has not been in public interest. His contention based on personal grounds doe s not clinch the issue in his favour. The plea of being an office bearer of the State Government employees also is unconvincing, transfer being a condition of s ervice of the appellant. In the teeth of the constricted scope of scrutiny of and interference with an or der of transfer of a public servant in the exercise of this Court’s power of jud icial review, we find no substantial reasons to interfere with the impugned judg ment and order. The appellant has failed to demonstrate that his transfer is vit iated by the transgression of any statutory rule/norm or is afflicted by malafid e. The appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.