Utpalendu Bikas Saha, J.

1. The present petition is directed against the order of transfer dated 16.6.2009 (Annexure-D) issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and the order of release dated 23.9.2009 (Annexure-F) issued by the Divisional Forests Officer, Direction Division whereby and where under, along with others, the present petitioner Smt. Priti Mog Choudhury has been transferred from the office of the P.C.C.F. Agartala to the office of the Forest Training Division, Hatipara and released thereupon.

2. Heard Mr. A.C. Bhowmik, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. D.C. Roy, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents.

3. Mr. Bhowmik would contend that though the transfer is an incident of service, but it is the duty of the respondents employers to consider even the family problems of its employees like the petitioner who was in fact transferred on four occasions in her service life. He also contended that the petitioner was initially joined as a Lower Division Clerk under the respondents in the year 1990 and she was promoted to Upper Division Clerk. Subsequently, she was again promoted to Head Clerk in the year 2003 and ultimately, she was posted on transfer in the office of the P.C.C.F. vide order dated 23.2.2006. Thereafter, all on a sudden, the petitioner was transferred from office of the P.C.C.F., Agartala to the Forest Training Division, Hathipara by the impugned order.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that against the said order, the petitioner made a representation to the Hon'ble Minister of Forest Department for modification of the impugned order of transfer, a copy of the said representation was given to the Principal, Chief Conservator of Forest, Tripura, Agartala, the respondent No. 2 herein on 18.6.2009. But without replying anything to the said representation, the respondent No. 3 issued the impugned release order on 23.9.2009 with a direction that the petitioner shall be treated as released from the office of the P.C.C.F., with effect from 23.9.2009, Mr. A.M. Bhowmik also contends that on 24.9.2009, the petitioner again submitted a representation to the respondent No. 2 for staying the operation of the released order, but till today, the same has not been disposed of. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that though a Government employee is supposed to serve in any part of the State in the public interest, but the present petitioner is suffering from various family diseases and had undertaken major operation for which the instant transfer order is required to be interfered with. The learned Counsel for the petitioner finally submits that her only son is now studying in Class-XI and due to her instant transfer, she would not be in a position to took after her son also.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Majumder, learned Additional Government Advocate would contend that the present: petition cannot be entertained by this Court as there is no allegation of either mala fide action on the part of the respondents authorities or violation of statutory Rules and it is not a case that the impugned transfer order as well as the release order was issued without any authority. He further submits that as the transfer order was issued in the public interest, this Court cannot interfere with. He also referred to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. S.L. Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444 and a decision of this Court in the case of V.K. Mathew vs. Union of India, 2007 (1) GLT 183. He also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Khonbrailakpam Shyama Devi vs. State of Manipur, 2007 (1) GLT 418 in support of his contention, Mr. Majumder also submits that Hathipara is a place nearer to Agartala town where the petitioner can go from her own residence easily.

6. This Court has anxiously considered the rival submission of the learned Counsel for the parties an