This petition has been filed by the Assam Agricultural University-respondent No. 1 to modify the earlier order dated 22.3.99 passed by this Court in WP (C) 1375 of 1999. By that order operation of the order of transfer dated 18.3.99 was suspended and the writ petitioner was allowed to continue in his present post of Associate Professor of Agronomy. Faculty of Agriculture, AAU, Jorhat. Normally the power of this Court to interfere with an order of transfer is absolutely limited and circumscribed. This Court should not interfere with an order of transfer as transfer is the prerogative of the employer. But if it can be shown that the transfer is not in public interest and/or malafide exercise of power, the Court can interfere step in such a situation. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel makes a submission that this order of transfer is a malafide exercise of power in view of the displeasure incurred by the petitioner because he tried to make public some misdeeds/ mismanagement of the authority and even on 16.3.99 the Board took the following resolution and that resolution is quoted below : “The Board of Management of the University in its meeting held on March 16, 1999 took serious note of the press report quoting Dr. Nikunja Deka, Associate Professor, Department of Agronomy which alleged that this University is mismanaged by the Vice Chancellor, Assam Agricultural University. The Board condemned such e activities of Dr. Deka and authorised the AAU authority to take stem disciplinary action so that the image of the University is not tarnished by such irresponsible activities. Further it is notified in continuation with the earlier notification No. AAU/ R-Misc 1/97/110941 dated 19.8.1997 that no teacher, officer, employee and student of the University shall directly release University related matters to the Press without taking prior consent of the authority and without canalizing it through the Public Relation Officer/Technical Officer of the University.” 2. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel further submits that this order of transfer dated 18.3.99 is in pursuance of this action of the Board and it cannot be deemed to be in the public interest. He further submits that certain appointments were made by the authority in a most arbitrary manner particularly on the personal whims of Vice Chancellor. On the other hand, Mr. He further submits that certain appointments were made by the authority in a most arbitrary manner particularly on the personal whims of Vice Chancellor. On the other hand, Mr. Lahiri, learned counsel for University produces before me a list of persons appointed as Grade IV in February, 1999 and from the list it is seen that all these persons are working as MR worker in the University and no new persons were appointed. This contention of Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has no legs to stand upon. But even then, the question remains that whether the order of transfer was by way of punishment fa or is in the public interest. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel in this connection places reliance in (1982) GLR 366 (Lilaram Borah vs. Union of India & others). That was a case where an Assistant Aerodrome Officer was posted at Guwahati in 1977, certain complaints were received against the petitioner and complaints were enquired and report submitted and thereafter petitioner was transferred to Bombay by order dated 15.12.79. In the order itself it has been stated that he was being transferred on administrative operational 'grounds'. Transfer order was challenged on the ground that it was malafide and nothing but an act of victimisation. Respondent-department contended that the enquiry was merely to satisfy the mind of the authority about certain allegations levelled against the petitioner and was not a full fledged enquiry and order based on finding of arrived at in the course of such enquiry cannot be termed as punitive in nature. 3. Mr. Lahiri, learned counsel draws my attention that the process of transfer in the case of the petitioner was initiated earlier as will appear from the record produced by him. No doubt process was initiated as far back as on 22.2.99 and the name of three persons were placed before the Vice Chancellor on 27.2.99 and the Vice Chancellor ordered that the petitioner may be placed at Gossaigaon. This was on 13.3.99 and thereafter order of transfer was issued on 18.3.99. 4. Be that as it may, on perusal of the statements made in the writ petition, I find that there was a hitch between the Vice Chancellor and the petitioner and the petitioner was not in the goodbook of the Vice Chancellor and as such the Vice Chancellor wanted to get rid of him by transferring him from the campus at Jorhat. Prima facie, I find that this is the basic reason behind the transfer of petitioner. Accordingly, I do not find it to be a fit case where the earlier order of stay shows be modified. In view of that matter this misc petition stand rejected. 5. At this stage Mr. Lahiri, learned counsel submits that as the stay order passed earlier has been made absolute, this writ petition itself may be disposed of in terms of the order. In view of that, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that this is a fit case where the order of transfer dated 18.3.99 (Annexure K to the writ petition) shall stand quashed. Misc case as well as writ petition stand disposed.