WP(C) 1073/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI By a notification, dated 01.01.2004 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), issued by the respondent No.1, the petitioner was appointed as Finance and Accounts Offic er (hereinafter referred to as F & AO) in the office of the Director General of Police, Assam, and since then, the petitioner has been working, in the said capa city, at the said office. Aggrieved by the notification, dated 10.01.2011 (Anne xure-4 to the writ petition), whereby the petitioner has been transferred from h is said place of posting to Titabor, in the district of Jorhat, as Treasury Offi cer, the petitioner has filed this writ application, under Article 226 of the Co nstitution of India, seeking issuance of appropriate directions setting aside an d quashing the said notification, dated 10.01.2011, to the extent that the same relates to the petitioner. Heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. D. Saikia, le arned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner’s grievance is that in the capacity of F & AO, in the office o f the Director General of Police (hereinafter referred to as DGP), the petitione r has been investigating a huge financial scam involving 3rd and 10th Assam Poli ce Battalions and, in fact, a request, in this regard, has been made by the Dire ctor General of Police, Assam, to the Government to reconsider the petitioner’s transfer, which has been effected by the impugned notification, dated 10.01.201 1. The petitioner also submits that he has made a representation, seeking recall of his transfer order, inasmuch as his mother is an old person, there is none t o look after her and his daughter is a student of Class-XII. The petitioner furt her submits that he is the Secretary of the Federation of the employees concerne d and his transfer would affect the working of his Federation. The respondents have resisted the writ petition by contending, inter alia, that the petitioner has been transferred following the guidelines, issued, in this re gard, by the Election Commission of India, on 14th of December, 2010, inasmuch a s elections are being held for constituting the Legislative Assembly in Assam. While considering the present writ petition, it needs to be noted that the norma l tenure of an officer, at a given place of posting, is three years. The petitio ner could not have, therefore, ordinarily, been kept as F & AO in the office of the DGP, Assam, for a period longer than three years. The petitioner having been posted, on 01.01.2004, as F & AO in the office of the DGP, Assam, he could have , and ought to have, been transferred way back in the year 2007, but he has been retained at Guwahati. As far as the petitioner’s contention that he has been investigating a scam invo lving 3rd and 10 Assam Police Battalion, suffice it to point out that it is the police authorities, including the Director General of Police, who, if aggrieved by the impugned transfer order, ought to have come before this Court. The requir ement of his superior authorities cannot vest in the petitioner a right to deman d cancellation of the impugned transfer order. Coupled with the above, the guidelines, issued by the Election Commission of Ind ia, do not permit retention of a person, at a given place, for more than three y ears. In fact, the guidelines states that those, who have completed three years on or before 31.3.2011, shall be posted out. It has also been contended, on behalf of the petitioner, that the petitioner is at the State headquarters of the department concerned and ought not to have, the refore, been transferred. In this regard, it needs to be carefully noted that th e petitioner’s parent department is the Department of Finance and it is the Depa rtment of Finance, which has to make the transfer order and, admittedly, the pet itioner is not working at the headquarters of the Finance Department. The fact t hat the petitioner has been working at the State headquarters of the police woul d, therefore, not protect the petitioner from being transferred. Coupled with the above, it has also been brought to the notice of this Court tha t the petitioner has been transferred to Titabor as Treasury Officer and the inc umbent thereof, namely, Sri R. Medhi, already handed over the charge and, presen tly, it is the S.D.O.(Civil), who is temporarily holding the charge of the offic e of the Treasury Officer, at Titabor. Obviously, such an arrangement has to be inherently temporary in nature or else, it will create serious financial difficu lties for all those, who are required to deal with the office of the Treasury Of ficer at Titabor. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court by the State respondents th at the petitioner’s transfer from the office of the DGP, as Treasury Officer, Ti tabor, had the approval of the Chief Minister of the State, which, strictly spea king, was, in the present case, not necessary inasmuch as the petitioner has bee n posted out of Guwahati long after three years. As far as the petitioner’s contention that he is the Secretary of the Federation of the employees concerned and that his transfer would cause problem for the Fe deration, it may be pointed that the person, who would be aggrieved, in such an event, is the Federation and the Federation is not before the Court as petitione r. As regards the petitioner’s contention that his mother is an old aged person and that his daughter is studying in Class-XII, it is clear that these factors cann ot be a ground to interfere with the impugned transfer order. Because of what have been discussed above, this Court does not find that the pet itioner has been able to make out any case warranting this Court’s interference with the impugned order of transfer of the petitioner in exercise of this Court’ s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, therefore, fails and shall accordingly stand disposed of. The interim directions, passed in this case, on 25.02.2011, shall accordingly st and vacated. No order as to costs.