JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. 1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 22.7.2016 passed in appellant’s WP(C) No.588/2016 to the extent the learned Single Judge of this High Court has remanded the matter to the Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, for a fresh consideration. 2. The appellant was posted as Principal-cum-Chief Superintendent at Assam Medical College & Hospital, Dibrugarh for more than 4 years. The State Government, therefore, vide order dated 1.4.2015, transferred him in the same capacity to Gauhati Medical College & Hospital, Guwahati, in place of Respondent No.4, who, in turn, was transferred by another order of the same date to Fakruddin Ali Ahmed Medical College & Hospital, Barpeta. At that time, Respondent No.3 was posted as Principal-cum-Chief Superintendent of Fakruddin Ali Ahmed Medical College & Hospital, Barpeta and to complete the chain, he, by another order of the same date, was transferred in place of the appellant at Dibrugarh. 3. Since Respondent No.4 was to retire from service on 31.1.2016 and had hardly 9 months of service left, he challenged his transfer order dated 1.4.2015 in WP(C) No.1944/2015 from Guwahati to Barpeta and a learned Single Judge of this Court by an interim order stayed the transfer of Respondent No.4. During the hearing of said writ petition, issue relating to holding of the post of Director of Medical Education, Assam on In-charge basis by Respondent No.3 got intertwined which led to filing of two more writ petitions relating to filling up of the post of Director of Medical Education in accordance with the provisions of Assam Medical Education Service Rules, 2008. All the writ petitions were later finally disposed of by a common order dated 31.8.2015 whereby issue regarding transfer of Respondent No.4 was remanded to the Health and Family Welfare Department for a fresh consideration. By that order, the learned Single Judge also quashed the appointment of Respondent No.3 as In-charge Director of Medical Education. The order dated 31.8.2015 was challenged in Writ Appeal by Respondent No.3, which was finally disposed of by a Division Bench with a slight modification that till filling up the post of Director of Medical Education on regular basis, he shall be allowed to continue as In-charge. 4. The order dated 31.8.2015 was challenged in Writ Appeal by Respondent No.3, which was finally disposed of by a Division Bench with a slight modification that till filling up the post of Director of Medical Education on regular basis, he shall be allowed to continue as In-charge. 4. In compliance of order dated 31.8.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.1944/2015, the State Government re-considered the case of Respondent No.4 and allowed him to complete his tenure at Guwahati till the date of his retirement i.e. 31.1.2016. In the result, the appellant also had to continue at his original place of posting i.e. Dibrugarh. 5. Later, just before the date of retirement of Respondent No.4, the Departmental Secretary put up a note before the Departmental Commissioner and Secretary on 30.1.2016 mentioning therein that Respondent No.4 was retiring from service on 31.1.2016 and Respondent No.3 has made a representation for his transfer to Guwahati from Barpeta against the vacancy due to retirement. The Departmental Secretary also clarified in the note that since appellant has already served at Dibrugarh as Principal-cum-Chief Superintendent for 4 years and would be due for retirement on 31.3.2020; the Department should stick to its earlier decision to post him at Guwahati. Accordingly, it was proposed that appellant be allowed to join at Guwahati and one Prof. Dr. Arabinda Das be transferred from Tezpur to Dibrugarh. This proposal was discussed at length by the Departmental Commissioner and Secretary with the Minister, who also approved the same. Following the approval of proposal, the appellant was transferred from Dibrugarh to Guwahati vide order dated 30.1.2016. And in compliance of the transfer order, the appellant gave his charge at Dibrugarh on 31.1.2016 and joined at Guwahati on 1.2.2016 since 31.1.2016 was a holiday (Sunday). 6. But, in less than a day, the State Government vide order dated 1.2.2016 transferred respondent No.3 to Guwahati in place of the appellant. This resulted into supersession of appellant’s transfer order dated 30.1.2016 to Guwahati. Aggrieved, the appellant filed WP(C) No.588/2016 and the learned Single Judge vide order dated 3.12.2016 stayed the operation of transfer order dated 1.2.2016. The appellant, therefore, continued to hold his post as Principal-cum-Chief Superintendent, Gauhati Medical College & Hospital, Guwahati. 7. This resulted into supersession of appellant’s transfer order dated 30.1.2016 to Guwahati. Aggrieved, the appellant filed WP(C) No.588/2016 and the learned Single Judge vide order dated 3.12.2016 stayed the operation of transfer order dated 1.2.2016. The appellant, therefore, continued to hold his post as Principal-cum-Chief Superintendent, Gauhati Medical College & Hospital, Guwahati. 7. Finally also the learned Single Judge after hearing the parties and perusing the original record pertaining to transfer in question, by the impugned order has quashed the transfer order dated 1.2.2016 of Respondent No.3 to Guwahati. And while quashing the order dated 1.2.2016, the learned Single Judge in paragraph 22 of the order has given very relevant and cogent reasons which we wish to reproduce as under:- “As noticed in the order dated 03.02.2016, within one day of issuance of the notification dated 30.01.2016, impugned notification dated 01.02.2016 was issued. Though in the impugned notification, there is a recital that it was issued in the interest of 'public service', no 'public service' or 'public interest' is discernible from the record. Mere recital of such expression in the transfer notification would not suffice. Interest of 'public service' or 'public interest' must be discernible from the record. As noticed above, as directed by the Additional Chief Secretary, notification dated 30.01.2016 was cancelled without any rhyme or reason. No doubt, transfer and posting of Government officials are matters which are within the realm of the administration and ordinarily Courts would not interfere in such matters. Law is well-settled regarding limited scope of judicial review in matters of transfer and posting of Government servants but within the limited scope, if the writ Court finds the impugned action to be in violation of statutory Rules or being vitiated by mala fides or arbitrariness, Court would be failing in its duty if it shies away from scrutinizing such a challenge. This Court in a number of decisions has held that subsequent order staying or cancelling a previous order issued in public interest must be based on overriding public interest. No such overriding public interest is discernible in this case. Moreover, as noticed in the order dated 03.02.2016, the Department was dealing with Principals of Medical Colleges. This Court in a number of decisions has held that subsequent order staying or cancelling a previous order issued in public interest must be based on overriding public interest. No such overriding public interest is discernible in this case. Moreover, as noticed in the order dated 03.02.2016, the Department was dealing with Principals of Medical Colleges. Transferring an incumbent on one day following which he hands over his charge and takes over charge in his new place of posting and then cancelling such transfer order the very next day thereby reverting him to the original place of posting is certainly not the way to treat a Principal of a Medical College. Such action may undermine the dignity, status and authority associated with the office of Principal of a Medical College. Respondent No.3 may have his personal grievance and his desire for a posting at Guwahati may be genuine considering his personal hardship but that would not justify such reckless and whimsical action of the respondents in transferring and then cancelling transfer of a Principal of a Medical College within one or two days.”(emphasis supplied) 8. The learned Single Judge has, however, remanded the matter to the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, for afresh consideration. It is against this direction of remand, the appellant has filed the present appeal and by order dated 29.8.2016, the court directed the respondents to allow the appellant to function as Principal, Gauhati Medical College & Hospital. 9. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that once the transfer order dated 1.2.2016 of Respondent No.3 to Guwahati was found to be illegal, there was no need for the learned Single Judge to remand the matter for afresh consideration. It has also been argued that the learned Single Judge failed to see that once the order dated 1.2.2016 is set aside, transfer order dated 30.1.2016 of appellant posting him at Guwahati automatically revived and as such, the same ought to have been allowed to operate. The respective counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, defended the impugned direction of remand, as passed by the learned Single Judge. 10. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the issue, we are of the view that the appeal deserves to be allowed. The respective counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, defended the impugned direction of remand, as passed by the learned Single Judge. 10. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the issue, we are of the view that the appeal deserves to be allowed. Once the transfer order dated 1.2.2016 was held to be illegal by the learned Single Judge, there was no justification for remanding the matter again to the same Secretary, who had passed that order. The learned Single Judge overlooked the fact that earlier transfer order dated 31.1.2016 stood automatically revived and became operative immediately after the transfer order dated 1.2.2016 was set aside. The appellant having served for 4 years at Dibrugarh was transferred vide order dated 31.1.2016 to Guwahati and in all fairness, he should have been allowed to function as Principal-cum-Chief Superintendent at Gauhati Medical College & Hospital, Guwahati in terms of the Transfer Policy. We, accordingly, direct Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to allow the appellant to function as Principal-cum-Chief Superintendent of Gauhati Medical College & Hospital, Guwahati in terms of the Transfer Policy. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.7.2016 to the extent the learned Single Judge remanded the matter to the Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, for afresh consideration is set aside.