JUDGMENT Rajan Roy, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of transfer dated 17.06.2015 passed by the opposite party no. 3 by which he has been transferred to another tube well situated at about 100 kilometers away. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed out of malice as the petitioner allegedly had filed a writ petition (Writ Petition No. 1260 (SS) of 2015). Discrimination is also being alleged on the ground that opposite party no. 3 has recalled the order of transfer in so far as it relates to Sri Asif Khan. 4. I do not find any ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the petitioner may approach the concerned Superintending Engineer by submitting a representation in this regard who shall consider and decide the same within a period of one month. With the aforesaid observation the writ petition is disposed of.