JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 2. Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. at the outset has submitted that she does not have any information whether the respondents considered the representation filed by the petitioner in view of the memorandum dated 24.08.1993 issued by the Govt. of Tripura, Appointment & Services Department (Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition). Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. has further submitted that there are certain difficulties which cannot be avoided as the petitioner is already released from his present place of posting. 3. From the other side, Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is due to retire within 8(eight) months from when the impugned order of transfer was issued by the Memorandum No.F.1(22-1)-DEE/Estt./2016(L)/374(15) dated 09.05.2016 (Annexure-P/3 to the writ petition). By the said memorandum dated 09.05.2016, the petitioner has been transferred from the office of the Education Inspectorate, Sadar-A, Agartala to the Education Inspectorate, Bishalgarh. Though the petitioner has not been transferred far away from his present place of posting, but Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel has submitted that in view of the policy decision of the Government as reflected in memorandum No.F.(10)-GA/93 dated 24.08.1993, ordinarily in the last one year in the service of a government employee, the employee shall not be transferred except to a place of his choice. Else, it would create various jeopardies. 4. By the order dated 17.06.2016, this court had directed to dispose the representation of the petitioner in view of the said memorandum dated 24.08.1993 (Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition), but no result has yielded as yet. This court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed with the following order and direction: The impugned transfer order dated 09.05.2016 (Annexure-P/3 to the writ petition) in respect of the petitioner is interfered with and set aside in view of the declared policy of the state and the petitioner shall be allowed to join in his present place of posting i.e. the Education Inspectorate, Sadar-A, Agartala without delay. 5. 5. Since in view of the memorandum dated 09.05.2016, no reason has been assigned or no reason has even been furnished before this court in terms of the order dated 17.06.2016, this court has assumed that there is no such reason and even it can be believed that there was no consideration in terms of the memorandum dated 24.08.1993 when the petitioner was transferred from his present place of posting. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.