WP(C) 700/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. U.K. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. R . Deka, learned Standing counsel, PWD. I have also heard Mr. P.K. Roy, learned c ounsel appearing for the respondent No. 7. The petitioner presently serving as Assistant Executive Engineer, Goalpara Rural Roads Sub-Division is aggrieved by his transfer to Hamren Road Sub-Division vid e impugned order dated 28.01.2011. By the said order as many as 77 officers have been transferred including the respondent No. 7. The order has been issued on t wo fold grounds of public interest and on the instruction of the Election Depart ment. Referring to Annexure-C instruction dated 14.12.2010 issued by the Electio n Commission of India, Mr. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being not resident of Goalpara District and he having not comple ted three years of service at Goalpara during the last four years nor will be co mpleting three years on or before 31.03.2011, he could not have been picked up for transfer by the impugned order dated 28.01.2011. Ms. Deka, learned Standing counsel, PWD as well as Mr. P.K. Roy, represe nting the respondent No. 7, submit that the respondent No. 7 being a resident of Dhubri District, is required to be transferred from the said District as a cons equence of which the petitioner has been transferred from Goalpara. At this stag e, Mr. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner submits hat such a course of act ion has been adopted only to accommodate the respondent No. 7. By order dated 07.02.2011, learned Standing counsel, PWD was directed to produce the records. On perusal of the same produced by Ms. Deka, learned Stand ing counsel, PWD, nothing is discernible to suggest that there was any malafide and/or colourable exercise towards issuance of the transfer order. However, at t he same time it is also not discernible that while transferring the petitioner t he aforementioned two criteria mentioned in the election guidelines were also ta ken into consideration. Considering the matter in its entirety, the writ petition is disposed of directi ng the authority who has issued the impugned order dated 28.01.2011 to consider the above plea of the petitioner that he having not completed three years at Goa lpara District his case does not come within the purview of the aforesaid guide lines of the Election Commission. Highlighting the said plea, if the petitioner makes a representation within seven days from today to the said authority, the same may be disposed of as expeditiously as possible but at any rate not later t han one week therefrom. At this stage, Ms. R. Deka, learned Standing counsel, PWD submits that s he has received instruction from the authority that in case of difficulty on the part of the petitioner to go to Hamren, the authority may consider his case for appropriate posting around Goalpara District. No opinion is expressed in this r egard. Till the aforesaid exercise is carried out by both the parties and the authority passes a speaking order on the basis of the representation to be made by the petitioner within seven days from today, the earlier status quo shall co ntinue to hold the field. In case, the petitioner fails to make the representati on within the stipulated time, i.e. 15.02.2011, this order shall be ignored.