JUDGMENT AND ORDER : L.S. Jamir, J. Heard Mr. D.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resources Department as well as Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. J. Patowary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4. 2. The petitioner was promoted to the rank of Assistant Executive Engineer, Government of Assam in the year 1997. The petitioner has been working as Assistant Executive Engineer (C), Rangia Water Resources Sub-Division, Rangia since 14-02-2014. While the petitioner was functioning as such, the respondent No. 3 issued a Notification dated 04-02-2016 effecting transfer and posting of various officers under the Water Resources Department, Assam. Therein, the respondent No. 4 was also promoted and appointed to officiate as Assistant Engineer (Civil), Water Resources Department and in the interest of public service was posted as Assistant Executive Engineer (TC), Nalbari Water Resources Division, Nalbari with Head Quarter at Nalbari with effect from the date of taking over charge against existing vacancy. Subsequent to the Notification dated 04-02-2016, the respondent No. 2 issued another Notification dated 26-02-2016 in modification of the earlier Notification dated 04-02-2016 by which respondent No. 4 was posted as Assistant Executive Engineer (C) Rangia with Head Quarter at Rangia with effect from the date of taking charge vice the petitioner transferred. By the same Notification, the petitioner was transferred and posted as Assistant Executive Engineer (TC) Office of the S.E. Hailakandi Water Resources Circle, Hailakandi with Head Quarter at Hailakandi with effect from the date of taking charge against existing vacancy. Being aggrieved with the transfer effected by the Notification dated 26-02-2016, the petitioner preferred a representation dated 01-03-2016 before the respondent No. 2. Thereafter, the respondents had issued a Notification dated 04-03-2016 partially modifying the earlier Notification dated 26-02-2016 transferring and posting the petitioner from Rangia Water Resources Sub-Division, Rangia as Assistant Engineer (TC), Nagaon Water Resources Division, Nagaon with Head Quarter at Nagaon with effect from the date of taking over charge. Consequent to the Notification dated 04-03-2016, the respondent No. 2 issued a communication dated 04-03-2016 to the petitioner directing him to implement the order of transfer and posting within a week on receipt of the order. The petitioner was further directed to hand over charge within the stipulated time to his reliever. Consequent to the Notification dated 04-03-2016, the respondent No. 2 issued a communication dated 04-03-2016 to the petitioner directing him to implement the order of transfer and posting within a week on receipt of the order. The petitioner was further directed to hand over charge within the stipulated time to his reliever. The petitioner again made a representation dated 05-03-2016 before the respondent No. 2 against the Notification dated 04-03-2016 requesting to cancel the said Notification and to consider the request of the petitioner by taking into account his daughter's academic session and also taking the ground that the transfer order was issued without following the necessary guideline and mandates issued by the Government of Assam while effecting a transfer order prior to three years of completion at a place. As his representation was not considered, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been working at his current place of posting since 14-02-2014 and has completed only two years in the said place of posting. Therefore, the Notification dated 04-03-2016 was issued in violation of the OM dated 06-08-2013 which provides that the normal tenure of posting of an officer in a place of posting should be three years. The impugned Notification dated 04-03-2016 was also issued without assigning any cogent and bona fide reason which is arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the Notification dated 04-03-2016 was not issued in terms of the Election Commission guidelines contained in the communication dated 31-12-2015. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that his daughter is in her mid academic session of study pursuing her Higher Secondary Board Assam and the transfer of the petitioner would adversely effect her study and future career. Therefore, the transfer of the petitioner by the Notification dated 04-03-2016 is not in public interest but the same has been issued by taking extraneous consideration which is not tenable in law. 4. The Water Resources Department has not filed counter-affidavit. However, Mr. B. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resources Department has produced the relevant record and on the basis of the same, submits that the transfer of the petitioner has been done in public interest without any mala fide intention. 4. The Water Resources Department has not filed counter-affidavit. However, Mr. B. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resources Department has produced the relevant record and on the basis of the same, submits that the transfer of the petitioner has been done in public interest without any mala fide intention. It is also submitted that the transfer and posting of a Government servant is within the prerogative of the Government so long as the same is not tainted by mala fide or against statutory Rules. In the present case, he submits that the Notification dated 04-03-2016 was issued in the exigency of service. He submits that the record would clearly indicate that the transfer of the petitioner was made after consideration of the petitioner's representation dated 01-03-2016. 5. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4 while supporting the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel, Water Resources Department further submits that this Court should not interfere in all the transfer matter more particularly when such transfer of Government employee has been done in exigencies of service. Transfer and posting of a Government employee should be left to the wisdom of the employer and should not be interfered by this Court so long as the same is not based on extraneous consideration or tainted by mala fide. 6. I have considered the submissions forwarded by the learned counsel for the parties. This Court has also considered the record produced by the learned Standing Counsel, Water Resources, Department. 7. From a perusal of the record, it is seen that after the Notification dated 26-02-2016 was issued, the petitioner had made a representation before the respondent No. 2 on 01-03-2016. The official record indicates that the respondents had considered the representation made by the petitioner. The records further reveals that a communication dated 27-02-2016 was made by the Minister, Revenue and Disaster Management, Administrative Reforms and Training, Implementation of Assam Accord and addressed to the respondent No. 2 requesting to cancel the transfer order of the petitioner in the interest of public service. It was only after the consideration of the petitioner's representation as well as the letter dated 27-02-2016 made by the Minister, Revenue and DM etc that the impugned Notification dated 04-03-2016 was issued transferring the petitioner to Nagaon Water Resources Division, Nagaon. 8. It was only after the consideration of the petitioner's representation as well as the letter dated 27-02-2016 made by the Minister, Revenue and DM etc that the impugned Notification dated 04-03-2016 was issued transferring the petitioner to Nagaon Water Resources Division, Nagaon. 8. It is already a settled position of law that transfer is an exigency of service and it is entirely for the employer to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is to be transferred from his present place of posting. It is also settled position of law that the transfer is an incident of service and is not to be interfered with by Courts unless it is shown to be arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principles governing the transfer as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Abani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa, reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 169. In the case in hand, none of the ingredients are attracted nor is there any allegation of mala fide in the writ petition. Therefore, taking into totality of the whole facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out a case calling for interference of the Notification dated 04-03-2016 by this Court. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. 9. No costs. 10. Return the records to Mr. B. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resources Department, Assam.