JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. 1. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. J. Patowari for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. D. Upamanyu, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 and Mr. S.B. Sarma, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 6. By an order dated 13.04.2017 (Annexure-3 of the writ petition) passed by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Labour & Welfare Department, Guwahati, the petitioner, who was holding the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Guwahati, was transferred to Nagaon. By the said order, the respondent No. 6, who was holding the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner, attached to Head Quarter, Guwahati, was transferred as Assistant Labour Commissioner, Guwahati and she was also allowed to hold the charge of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Head Quarter. By the aforesaid order, some other persons in the rank of Assistant Labour Commissioner and Labour Inspector were also transferred. Against the said order dated 13.04.2017, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 18.04.2017 (Annexure-4 of the writ petition) to the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Labour and Welfare Department, Dispur, Guwahati. 2. As the said representation was not attended to, the petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing a writ application, which was registered as WP(C) No. 2429/2017 and this Court, by an order dated 26.04.2017, disposed of the writ petition at the motion stage itself, directing the competent authority to dispose of the representation dated 18.04.2017 by a speaking order, and providing further that till a decision is taken on the representation, the transfer order dated 13.04.2017 shall not be enforced against the petitioner. Subsequently, an order dated 07.06.2017 (Annexure-7 of the writ petition) was passed by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Labour & Welfare Department, whereby the representation of the petitioner was not favourably considered and he was directed to join in his new place of posting as Assistant Labour Commissioner, Nagaon. 3. Challenging the order of transfer dated 13.4.17 as well as the order dated 7.6.17, the instant writ application is filed by the petitioner. 4. While entertaining the writ application, noticing that the issues raised by the petitioner in the representation dated 18.04.2017 had not been considered, this Court, by an order dated 14.06.2017, had stayed the order dated 07.06.2017. 5. Challenging the order of transfer dated 13.4.17 as well as the order dated 7.6.17, the instant writ application is filed by the petitioner. 4. While entertaining the writ application, noticing that the issues raised by the petitioner in the representation dated 18.04.2017 had not been considered, this Court, by an order dated 14.06.2017, had stayed the order dated 07.06.2017. 5. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had filed an application on 16.08.2017, praying for vacation/alteration/modification of the aforesaid interim order dated 14.06.2017, which was registered as IA (C) No. 2834/2017. 6. In the writ petition, the respondent No. 5 had filed an affidavit on 25.07.2017 and the writ petitioner had also filed an affidavit-in-reply to the said affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent No. 5. The respondent No. 1 had also filed an affidavit in the writ petition on 28.08.2017. 7. Order dated 28.08.2017 passed in the present writ petition and IA (C) No. 2834/2017 goes to show that a consensus was arrived at by and between the parties that the writ petition be taken up for disposal and accordingly, it was observed that an attempt would be made to dispose of the writ petition on 05.09.2017. On 05.09.2017, this Court requested Mr. D. Saikia, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, to produce the relevant records while fixing the case on 07.09.2017. On 07.09.2017, records were produced and after some hearing had progressed, Mr. Saikia had prayed for taking up the matter for further consideration on 08.09.2017 in order to enable him to obtain further instructions. The interim order was continued all along and the hearing was concluded on 08.09.2017. 8. The case of the petitioner, necessary for the purpose of disposal of the present writ petition, is that while he was posted at Dhubri, he was transferred to Guwahati on medical grounds and as he was not handed over charge of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Guwahati, by a Notification dated 6.6.2015 issued by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Labour & Welfare Department, he was allowed to take over charge of the Office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Guwahati unilaterally and on that very day of issuance of the Notification, he had taken over and assumed charge. The petitioner is going to retire on 31.07.2018 and the transfer order was issued within 1 (one) year 10(ten) months of the present place of posting against the normal tenure of 3(three) years. The petitioner is going to retire on 31.07.2018 and the transfer order was issued within 1 (one) year 10(ten) months of the present place of posting against the normal tenure of 3(three) years. Besides, the petitioner's younger son is in mid-academic session of Class-X. It is pleaded that the grounds taken by the petitioner in the representation dated 18.04.2017 was not at all considered while passing the impugned order dated 07.06.2017. No approval was taken from the Chief Minister in violation of the Office Memorandum dated 06.08.2013 and though it is stated in the order dated 07.06.2017 that ex-post facto approval of the Chief Minister was obtained, no such approval was, in fact, granted in respect of transfer of the petitioner. The post of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Nagaon is lying vacant after transfer of the respondent No. 6 to Head Quarter by order dated 14.12.2015 and the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Golaghat had been holding the additional charge of the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Nagaon temporarily in addition to his own duties until further orders. It is pleaded that the impugned order of transfer was passed only to accommodate the respondent No. 6 at Guwahati. 9. In the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1, it is stated that as on the date of filing of the affidavit on 28.08.2017, the petitioner had already completed 2(two) years in his present place of posting and the transfer order dated 13.04.2017 was issued in public interest as the post was lying vacant for a long time. It is also pleaded that the representations against the transfer orders are to be entertained only after carrying out of the transfer orders as laid down in the Office Memorandum dated 19.02.2015 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Personnel (B) Department. It is further stated that academic activities of the children of a Government servant is not a part of service profile of a Government servant and that there is no professed policy of the Government or Service Rule laying down that officers may not be transferred on the ground of academic activities of their children. It is stated that there is no provision in the Assam Labour Service Rules, 1970 that the Government employee cannot be transferred within 1 (one) year of his retirement Approval of the Chief Minister was taken by the Department following due process. It is stated that there is no provision in the Assam Labour Service Rules, 1970 that the Government employee cannot be transferred within 1 (one) year of his retirement Approval of the Chief Minister was taken by the Department following due process. The allegation that the petitioner is transferred only to accommodate the interest of the respondent No. 6 is denied. The petitioner was earlier transferred to different places before completion of 3(three) years of service in one place of posting but he had not raised any objection earlier and there were instances of the petitioner himself requesting to transfer him within a period of 2(two) years. 10. In the affidavit of the respondent No. 5, more or less the same stand as had been taken in the affidavit of the respondent No. 1, is taken though the affidavit was filed prior in point of time, i.e. on 25.07.2017. 11. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had indicated in his representation dated 18.04.2017 that his younger son is going to appear in the HSLC Examination in the next year and that he was going to retire in the middle of next year and, therefore, transfer at the fag end of his service career would result in hardship and besides, he had not even completed 2(two) years of service in the present place of posting. Drawing attention of the Court to Page-15 [Annexure-D of IA (C) No. 2834/2017] and the order of transfer dated 13.04.2017, he has emphatically urged that no ex-post facto approval was granted by the Chief Minister in respect of transfer of the petitioner. Relying upon the case of Dayal Das Vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2002 (2) GLT 109, Mr. Choudhury submits that this Court had noted that the guidelines for transfer of officers may not have statutory force, but the same is issued as a check against arbitrary transfers and that deviations from the said guidelines may result in arbitrary transfers. He submits that guidelines are not issued to be flouted with impunity. 12. Choudhury submits that this Court had noted that the guidelines for transfer of officers may not have statutory force, but the same is issued as a check against arbitrary transfers and that deviations from the said guidelines may result in arbitrary transfers. He submits that guidelines are not issued to be flouted with impunity. 12. He further submits that in the first place, when the transfer order was proposed to be passed before completion of 2(two) years in the present place of posting, no such approval was taken in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 06.08.2013 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Personnel (B) Department, which required approval of the Chief Minister in respect of a transfer of an officer who had not completed 2 (two) years in a particular place of posting, and even subsequently, incorrect statements have been made that the irregularity of not obtaining prior approval of the Chief Minister was rectified by obtaining ex-post facto approval from the Chief Minister. He submits that the order of transfer was not issued in public interest and the same was issued only to accommodate the interest of the respondent No. 6. Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Narayan Chowdhury Vs. State of Tripura & Ors., reported in 1999 (2) GLT 360, he submits that this Court had held that no practical purpose would be served by asking the writ petitioner in that case to proceed to his place of posting for about 10(ten) months. He has also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Kabul Chandra Saikia Vs. State of Assam & Ors., 2015(5) GLT 75 : WP(C) No. 1944/2015] disposed of on 31.08.2015, where Narayan Chowdhury (supra) was noted. 13. Mr. D. Saikia has submitted that though a stand was taken in the pleadings that ex-post facto approval of transfer of the writ petitioner was obtained from the Chief Minister, it appears that, in reality, approval was not granted. He submits that it appears to him that in the note placed before the Chief Minister, there are some over writings and the Department was led to believe that approval of the Chief Minister had been obtained. It is further submitted that this may call for some enquiry by the Department. He submits that it appears to him that in the note placed before the Chief Minister, there are some over writings and the Department was led to believe that approval of the Chief Minister had been obtained. It is further submitted that this may call for some enquiry by the Department. It is submitted by him that the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Nagaon is lying vacant since December, 2015 and the jurisdiction of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Nagaon extends to a vast area comprising of the districts of Nagaon, West Karbi Anglong and part of Karbi Anglong, Hojai to Morigaon etc. and the post is urgently required to be filled up by an experienced and efficient officer to protect the interest of large group of workers engaged in various organized and unorganized sectors in the area. He places reliance on the decisions of this Court in the cases of Kalyan Kr. Sarkar Vs. Alok Kanti Paul Choudhury & Ors., reported in 2006 (3) GUT 624 and Nirhandra Thaosen Vs. State of Assam & Am., reported in 2007 (3) GLT 934. He has also placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court rendered in State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Gobardhan Lal, reported in (2004) 11 SCC 402 . 14. Mr. S.B. Sarma submits that it is absolutely incorrect that transfer order was issued to accommodate the respondent No. 6. 15. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the materials on record. 16. At the outset, it will be appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the order of transfer dated 13.04.2017:- "No. GLR.35/2012/68: In the interest of public service, the following Asstt. Labour Commissioner & Labour Inspectors are transferred in the same capacity and posted at the place shown against each of their names with effect from the date of taking over charge. Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Sl. No. Name & Designation of the Officer Place of posting 1. Shri J. Pokhrel, Asstt. Labour Commissioner Tezpur Golaghat 2. Mr. M. Rahma, Asstt. Labour Commissioner Guwahati Nagaon 3. Smt.  Ajanta Sarma, Asstt. Labour Commissioner Attached to Head Quarter, Guwahati Guwahati, Kamrup (M) Smt. A. Sarma will continue to be ALC, HQ as additional charge. 4. Mr. B. Hazarika, Asstt. Labour Commissioner Golaghat Tezpur Labour Inspector Sl. No. Name & Designation of the Officer Place of posting 1. Smti. Mr. M. Rahma, Asstt. Labour Commissioner Guwahati Nagaon 3. Smt.  Ajanta Sarma, Asstt. Labour Commissioner Attached to Head Quarter, Guwahati Guwahati, Kamrup (M) Smt. A. Sarma will continue to be ALC, HQ as additional charge. 4. Mr. B. Hazarika, Asstt. Labour Commissioner Golaghat Tezpur Labour Inspector Sl. No. Name & Designation of the Officer Place of posting 1. Smti. Sonali Hojai Labour Inspector, Bongaigaon Jatinga Valley (Dima Hasao) 2. Shri D. Medhi, Labour Inspector, Dhekiajuli Mancachar 3. Shri Rameswar Sahu, Labour Inspector, Kakopathar Bongaigaon 4. Shri N. Das Labour Inspector, Behali Dhekiajuli (as additional charge) 17. Relevant portion of the Office Memorandum dated 06.08.2013 reads as follows:- "Government of Assam Department of Personnel : Person Dispur : Guwahati No. 116/2001/35 Dated Dispur, the 6th August, 2013 Office Memorandum Sub: Policy of transfer of officials. The State Government have issued circulars from time to time outlining the policies of transfer and posting of Government officials. These circulars, inter alia, stipulate that transferable Officers and staff should normally be transferred only upon completion of 3(three) years of service in a particular place of posting. Whenever public interest demands that an officer should be transferred from his place of posting before 3 years, proper justification and grounds may be recorded in writing for the transfer and order issued only after getting approval of the Chief Minister. The Government have re-examined the stipulation of obtaining prior approval of the Chief Minister while effecting the transfer and posting of Govt., officers before completion of their normal tenure of three years in one place. After careful consideration, it has been decided that henceforth approval of the Chief Minister is required to be obtained only for the transfer of any officer who has not completed 2(two) years in a particular place of posting instead of 3 (three) years. However, the normal tenure of posting of an officer in a place of posting for 3(three) years will remain the same. This modifies the corresponding provision of this departments OMs No. ABP.40/91/117 dated 19.09.1992, ABP.116/01/4 dated 4.2.2002 and ABP. 116/2001/29 dated 12.11.2009. This may be brought to the notice of all concerned." 18. However, the normal tenure of posting of an officer in a place of posting for 3(three) years will remain the same. This modifies the corresponding provision of this departments OMs No. ABP.40/91/117 dated 19.09.1992, ABP.116/01/4 dated 4.2.2002 and ABP. 116/2001/29 dated 12.11.2009. This may be brought to the notice of all concerned." 18. Perusal of the aforesaid Office Memorandum goes to show that the Government had reconsidered Circulars/Guidelines issued from time to time on the subject of transfer and it is decided that approval of the Chief Minister will be required to be obtained only for transfer of any officer who had not completed 2 (two) years in a particular place of posting instead of 3(three) years though normal tenure of 3(three) years in a place of posting is maintained. Accordingly, corresponding provisions of earlier Office Memoranda as indicated therein had been modified. 19. In Gobardhan Lal (supra), the Supreme Court has stated that unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or Rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guideline for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer concerned to approach higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. Order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision. 20. In Kalyan Kr. Sarkar (supra), this Court had held that on the basis of the guidelines relating to transfer or transfer policy having no statutory force, no right can be claimed on such guidelines/policy and that they cannot be enforced. 20. In Kalyan Kr. Sarkar (supra), this Court had held that on the basis of the guidelines relating to transfer or transfer policy having no statutory force, no right can be claimed on such guidelines/policy and that they cannot be enforced. It was further held that the order of transfer is open to judicial review by the High Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only if it is not issued in the interest of public service or is issued in violation of any statutory provision or the order suffers from vice of mala fide or is passed by an authority who is not competent to pass such order of transfer or it affects the service conditions such as seniority, scale of pay, secured emoluments etc. Same view had been by this Court in the case of Nirhandra Thaosen (supra). 21. Perusal of the records of File No. GLR. 35/2012 reveals that at Page-42, a note dated 20.05.2017 was put up to the Chief Minister and the Minister of State, Labour & Welfare. For better appreciation, the note is extracted in its entirety:- "Hon'ble Chief Minister, Hon'ble Minister of State, Labour & Welfare Notes from pre-page may kindly be perused. In pursuance of Govt. Notification No. GLR.35/2012/68, dated 13th April, 2017 (Sl. 70/c) the following transfer and posting of the Asstt. Labour Commissioner & Labour Inspectors may kindly be approved. Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Sl. No. Name & Designation of the Officer Place of posting Tenure till 30.04.2017 at present place of posting (underlined portion by hand) 1. Shri J. Pokhrel, Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Tezpur Golaghat 2 years 3 months 2. Shri M. Rahman, Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Guwahati Nagaon 1 year 11 months ( Score of 2 appearing before year and ‘s’ after year by hand. 11 months is also hand written. ) 3. Mrs. Ajanta Sarma, Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Attached to Head Quarter, Guwahati Guwahati Kamrup (M) Smt. A. Sarma will continue to be ALC, HQ as additional charge 1 year 4 months. 4. Shri B. Hazarika, Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Golaghat Tezpur 2 years 2 months Labour Inspector, Sl. No. Name & Designation of the Officer Place of posting Tenure till 30.04.2017 1. Smti. Sonali Hojai, Labour Inspector, Bongaigaon Jatinga Valley (Dima Hasao) 1 year 7 Months 2. Shri D. Medhi, Labour Inspector Dhekiajuli Mancachar 5 years 2 Months 3. 4. Shri B. Hazarika, Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Golaghat Tezpur 2 years 2 months Labour Inspector, Sl. No. Name & Designation of the Officer Place of posting Tenure till 30.04.2017 1. Smti. Sonali Hojai, Labour Inspector, Bongaigaon Jatinga Valley (Dima Hasao) 1 year 7 Months 2. Shri D. Medhi, Labour Inspector Dhekiajuli Mancachar 5 years 2 Months 3. Shri Rameswar Sahu, Labour Inspector, Kakopathar Bongaigaon 1 year 1 month 4. Shri N. Das Labour Inspector, Behali Dhekiajuli (as additional charge) 6 months Minister of State may take approval of Hon'ble Chief Minister in the above transfers as some of the officers are affected by the O.M. at Flag-'A'. 22. Relevant portion of Page-43 of File No. GLR.35/2012 is also extracted herein below: "MoS (Ind.), Labour Welfare Department, Notes prepage, The proposals for transfers at Sl. No. 3 (Asstt. Labour Commissioner) and Sl. No. 1 & 3 (Labour Inspector) are approved ex-post facto. However, the department is directed to take approval of undersigned before issue of order in future. Sd/- Chief Minister" 23. Perusal of the order of the Chief Minister would go to show that in respect of proposal for transfer of Assistant Labour Commissioner, only the proposal for transfer at serial No. 3 is approved ex-post facto. So far as Labour Inspectors are concerned, serial Nos. 1 and 3 are approved. It appears that the Chief Minister had taken exception of not taking his approval before issue of the order of transfer in future and that is why a direction is issued to take his approval before issue of order in future. 24. As noticed earlier, the question of taking approval of the Chief Minster arises in a case where an officer is sought to be transferred before expiry of 2(two) years in a particular place of posting. The order of transfer is dated 13.04.2017. The note is dated 20.05.2017. When the proposal at serial No. 3 is only approved in respect of Assistant Labour Commissioner, it has to be construed that in respect of other proposals, no ex-post facto approval was granted. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that there was no necessity of obtaining approval in respect of serial Nos. 1 and 2 of Assistant Labour Commissioners and serial No. 2 of Labour Inspector as they have put in more than 2(two) years in a particular place of posting. Mr. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that there was no necessity of obtaining approval in respect of serial Nos. 1 and 2 of Assistant Labour Commissioners and serial No. 2 of Labour Inspector as they have put in more than 2(two) years in a particular place of posting. Mr. Saikia has submitted that 2(two) years under the third column of Page-42 in respect of the petitioner must have been altered to 1 (one) year 11 (eleven) months subsequently. 25. The petitioner, admittedly, had taken over charge on 06.06.2015 and, therefore, definitely his tenure till 13.04.2017 or for that matter till 30.04.2017 was less than 2(two) years. It cannot be said with any amount of certainty at what point of time the aforesaid corrections, which is sought to be branded and styled by Mr. Saikia as 'manipulation' had taken place. Even 1(one) year 11(eleven) months is not a correct reflection of the tenure of the petitioner at the present place of posting, as he would have completed 1 (one) year 11 (eleven) months on or about 5.5.2017. It is not understood as to why tenure of the officers concerned in current place of posting was not indicated with reference to the date of order of transfer, which is the relevant date, but with reference to 30.04.2017, which has no relevance at all. Why the reference point was shown as 30.04.2017 defies logic as it is reasonable to understand that the tenure has to be calculated with reference to the date of transfer. It is no doubt correct that approval granted in respect of respondent No. 6 will have consequential effect in respect of the present petitioner because the place of posting of the respondent No. 6 has been changed. 26. Perusal of the records of File No. GLR.377/88 goes to show that the Additional Chief Secretary at Page-37 wanted to see the approval of the Chief Minster. Thereafter, observing that Chief Minister's approval was obtained ex-post facto, the order dated 01.06.2017 at Page-158C, which is the draft of the order of rejection of the representation of the petitioner, was approved. It appears, as submitted by Mr. Saikia, that the Department was labouring under an impression that ex-post facto approval of the Chief Minister was obtained, which is not the case in respect of transfer of the petitioner. It appears, as submitted by Mr. Saikia, that the Department was labouring under an impression that ex-post facto approval of the Chief Minister was obtained, which is not the case in respect of transfer of the petitioner. It is also noticed that no approval was accorded by the Chief Minister in respect of serial No. 4 of Labour Inspector, who had a tenure of 6(six) months. 27. When a proposal is put up before the Chief Minister for ex-post facto approval and the same is not approved, it cannot be countenanced that the order issued for which ex-post facto approval is sought, has to be given effect to. The order of the subordinate authority cannot prevail over the decision of the Chief Minister. 28. When a representation is directed to be disposed of by the Court, the disposal of the representation cannot be reduced an empty formality. In the instant case, the grounds taken in the representation by the petitioner was not even dealt with. A public order publicly made has to be read as it is and reasons cannot be supplemented by way of an affidavit later on. The observation made in the order dated 07.06.2017 that the Chief Minister had subsequently approved the order of transfer is also found to be not correct. 29. In view of the above discussion, the order dated 07.06.2017 is set aside and quashed and the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Labour & Welfare Department is directed to reconsider the matter in its entirety in the light of the observations made in this judgment & order. Till such time an order is passed by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Labour & Welfare Department, as directed, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue as Assistant Labour Commissioner, Kamrup. 30. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. In view of the aforesaid determination, I.A.(C) No. 2834/2017 also stands disposed of.