Michael Zothankhuma, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and Assam.

2. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the transfer order dated 24-08-2016, on the basis of which the petitioner has been transferred from the post of Deputy Commissioner, South Salmara-Mankachar to the post of Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, at Dispur. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner had earlier been posted as Additional Deputy Commissioner, Cachar with effect from 07-09-2013 till 30-12-2015 and transferred as CEO, Hailakandi Zilla Parishad, Cachar, in December, 2015. One month later, the petitioner was transferred to the post of Deputy Commissioner, South Salmara-Mankachar vide order dated 08-02-2016.

3. The petitioner's counsel submits that though the petitioner had not even been in the post of Deputy Commissioner, South Salmara-Mankachar, even for seven months, the respondents have transferred him on completion of six months of his three years tenure. The petitioner's counsel submits that the respondents should give reasons for his transfer and that this Court can interfere with the transfer order issued, as the same has not been issued in public interest or due to administrative exigency.

4. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner is retiring in August, 2017 and accordingly some consideration should have been given to the petitioner to allow him to retire from a place near his home town.

5. Mr. C. Choudhury, Advocate General, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has been transferred due to administrative exigency and in public interest. He also submits that the petitioner's representation with regard to his request for cancellation of the impugned order of transfer dated 24-08-2016 has been considered and rejected by the State respondents on 12-09-2016, on the ground that the transfer was made for administrative exigency.

The Advocate General, thus, prays that the writ petition should be dismissed as the petitioner has got no vested right to be posted in a particular place of his choice.

6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

7. I have also perused the official records on the basis of which the petitioner has been transferred and also the records wherein the petitioner's representation for cancellation of the impugned transfer order has been rejected. On perusal of the official records, I have noticed that the Chief Minister has given his approval to the transfer of the petitioner, as the said transfer was made within two years of him being posted to South Salmara-Mankachar. The only question put forth by the petitioner and which is to be decided is with regard to the fact, whether the respondents have given any reason/justification for the transfer.

8. It is settled law that transfer is an incident of service and that a challenge can be made to a transfer order if the same has not been issued in public interest or for administrative exigencies, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Pramath Ch. Sarma v. State of Assam and Ors., reported in 2007 (1) GLT 212.

9. In the case of Sital Prasad Saxena (Dead) By Lrs v. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2006) 9 SCC 583, the Apex court has held that a Government servant cannot disobey a transfer order by not reporting at the place of posting and then can go to a Court to ventilate his grievance. It has been held by the Apex Court in Sital Prasad Saxena (supra) that the duty of the officer is to first report for work where he has been transferred and then make a representation with regard to his personal problems. The Apex has also held that tendency of not reporting at the place of work and indulging in litigation has to be curbed. In the present case, the transfer order has been challenged not due to some personal difficulty of the petitioner but only on the ground that the petitioner should have been transferred on the basis of some reason or justification. The petitioner has no where stated that any hardship has b