B.D. Agarwal, J.

1. The State is in appeal against the order dated 09.08.2011 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP (C) No. 3528 of 2011.

2. By the aforesaid impugned order, the learned Single Judge has stayed the implementation of the order dated 11.07.2011 passed by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Water Resource Department, transferring the writ Petitioner (Respondent No. 1) from the office of Guwahati East, Water Resource Department to the office of Superintendent Engineer, Monitoring Evaluation Cell, Guwahati.

3. In view of the urgency of the matter and as agreed by the learned Counsel for both the sides, the writ appeal is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. Since the arguments were addressed on merit of the cases, this judgment will also dispose of the writ petition.

4. The gist of the case is that the writ Petitioner/Respondent No. 1 is the Executive Engineer in the Water Resource Department. In the recent past, in the month of October, 2008 the writ Petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer in the Office of the Superintendent Engineer, Monitoring Evaluation Cell. Thereafter, in the month of February, 2009, i.e. within a period of five months he was transferred to Nagaon Division. Vide order dated 25.01.2011, i.e. within a period of less than two years, the writ Petitioner was again brought from Nagaon Division to Guwahati East Division. While the writ Petitioner/Respondent No. 1 was working as Executive Engineer in Guwahati East, Water Resource Department, he has again been shifted to Monitoring and Evaluation Cell, Guwahati, where he was serving in the year 2008. Being aggrieved with the order of transfer within a period of six months, the Respondent No. 1 has filed the writ petition. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for both the sides, the learned Single Judge has stayed the operation of the transfer order, giving rise to the filing of this writ appeal by the State.

5. We have heard Sri K.N. Choudhury, learned Additional Advocate General for the Appellant and Sri MK Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 1/writ Petitioner. The transferee officer (Respondent No. 4) has been represented by Sri S Shyam, learned Counsel. We were also taken to the pleadings of the parties and various authorities by the learned Counsel for both the sides. The learned Additional Advocate General had also produced the relevant file during the course of hearing.

6. Since, we are also disposing of the writ petition; we would first address the contentions and submissions of the learned Counsel for the writ Petitioner. Sri MK Choudhury, learned Counsel for the writ Petitioner submitted that the transfer of the writ Petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and malafide in as much as the transferring authorities have not assigned any reason to transfer the writ Petitioner from one office to another within a period of six months. According to the learned Counsel, as per the government policy, laid down under Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2002, the normal tenure of the government officer at a particular station is three years and if a transfer is effected earlier to the normal tenure, there should be proper justification and the ground should be recorded and assigned in the order. Learned Counsel for the writ Petitioner also prayed to interfere in the impugned transfer order on the ground that the same has been issued at the behest of a minister and not in public interest.

7. Sri MK Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the writ Petitioner further urged that the concerned Minister of State (Respondent No. 3) himself had issued an order on 20.06.2011 prohibiting transfer of officers with a view that the implementation of the ongoing projects may not be hampered in the flood season. However, within a month of the said Order, the Respondent No. 3 himself deviated from the above dictate and recommended the writ Petitioner's premature transfer.

8. Per contra, the learned Addl. Advocate General submitted t