WP(C) 6393/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. N. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Als o heard Dr. B. Ahmed, learned Standing Counsel for the Irrigation department rep resenting the respondents 1 & 2. Mr. A.M. Buzarbaruah, the learned counsel appea rs for the respondent No.3. 2. The petitioner challenges the Notification dated 15.11.2010 (Annexure-2) , whereby the petitioner while serving as an Assistant Executive Engineer at Kal iabor is transferred to the office of the Superintending Engineer, Guwahati Elec trical Circle-I and the respondent No.3 (on promotion) has been transferred to t he post held by the petitioner at Kaliabor. The petitioner also challenges the o rder dated 29.11.2010, whereby the respondent No.3 has been directed to take ove r unilateral charge of office at his transferred station. 3. The chief ground to challenge the transfer is based on the Government Me morandum dated 4.2.2002 (Annexure-6), whereby proper justification is required t o be given for premature transfer (before completion of the normal 3 years tenur e) and also approval to be obtained for such premature transfer from the Chief M inister. 3. In pursuant to the order passed by the Court on 2.12.2010, Dr. Ahmed has produced the official records pertaining to the impugned transfer. Although the records shows that the transfer has been made in public interest, no proper jus tification for premature transfer of the petitioner is reflected nor approval of the Chief Minister appears to have been obtained for as is required by the Gove rnment memorandum dated 4.2.2002 for premature transfer. 4. Mr. A.M. Buzarbaruah, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent N o.3 submits that in pursuant to the order dated 29.11.2010, the respondent No.3 has taken over unilateral charge at Kaliabor on 30.11.2010. 5. Having regard to the submissions made and the materials on record, I am of the opinion that since the petitioner is yet to complete 2 years service at K aliabor and has been prematurely transferred, the department ought to have proce ssed the said transfer as per the requirement of the office memorandum dated 4.2 .2002. However the official records confirm that the procedural requirement of t he office memorandum issued by the Department of Personnel was ignored in the pr esent case. 6. In view of above, I am of the opinion that the transfer order dated 15.1 1.2010 and the consequential order dated 29.11.2010 permitting unilateral charge to the respondent No.3 cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly quashed . 7. However notwithstanding this order of the Court, the respondents are at liberty to take necessary action in conformity with the Government memorandum da ted 4.2.2002, if transfer is required to be made in public interest. 8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.