JUDGMENT : 1, The petitioner joined as Inspector of Excise in the Excise Department on 01.08.2013 and was posted at Goalpara (S). By a notification dated 20.09.2017, the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 was cross transferred whereby the petitioner, who was posted at Goalpara (S) was transferred to Lakhimpur (S) vice the respondent No. 5. Thereafter, by order dated 03.10.2017, the petitioner was released w.e.f. 03.10.2017 to enable him to join his new place of posting by the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara. The petitioner, thereafter, joined as Inspector of Excise, Lakhimpur on 06.10.2017. The respondent No. 5 was also released on 11.10.2017 by release order dated, 11.10.2017 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur. In the meantime, the respondents issued another notification dated, 17.10.2017 staying the earlier transfer order effected by the notification dated, 20.09.2017. By another notification dated, 15.11.2017 issued by the Excise Department, Government of Assam, the respondent No. 5 was allowed to continue as Inspector of Excise, Lakhimpur (Sadar) Circle with immediate effect and in partial modification of the notification dated 20.09.2017, the petitioner was posted as Inspector of Excise against the vacant post at Bihpuria Excise Circle, Lakhimpur District with immediate effect. Being aggrieved with the notifications dated 17.10.2017 and 15.11.2017, the petitioner is before this court. 2. Heard Ms. T. Som, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P. N. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Excise Department and Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. 3. Ms. T. Som, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notification dated, 17.10.2017 staying the earlier transfer effected by the notification dated, 20.09.2017 was done on the interference of the Member of Parliament (M.P.) inorder to accommodate the respondent No. 5 in his original place of posting. The notification dated, 15.11.2017 was also issued in arbitrary exercise of power by the respondents to accommodate the respondent No. 5 on the interference of the M.P. in his original place of posting i.e., Lakhimpur. The very interference of the M.P., more particularly when he is not from the constituency, would clearly indicate that the impugned notifications dated, 17.10.2017 and 15.11.2017 were not issued in public interest and the same were issued with malafide intention. The respondent No. 5 has brought in political influence for retaining him at Lakhimpur (Sadar) which is in violation of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1965. The respondent No. 5 has brought in political influence for retaining him at Lakhimpur (Sadar) which is in violation of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1965. In that view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notification dated, 17.10.2017 and 15.11.2017 requires interference. She has also placed reliance in the case of Sunit Kumar Bardoloi Vrs. State of Assam reported in 2010 (2) GLT 786 as well as in judgment and order dated 28.05.2015 passed by this court in WP(C) No. 1319 of 2015 (Shri Baikuntha Konch Vrs. State of Assam and Ors.). 4. Mr. P. N. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Excise Department on the other hand submits that no interference is required in the notifications dated 17.10.2017 and 15.11.2017 as the same were issued in public interest. He submits that there is no allegation by the petitioner that the notification dated, 17.10.2017 and 15.11.2017 suffers from violation of any statutory rules or that the said notification has been issued by an officer incompetent to do so or that the notifications are tainted by malafide. He submits that the allegation thrown on the M.P. of Lakhimpur that it was due to his interference cannot be sustained, inasmuch as the said M.P. has not been made a necessary party and therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and deserves to be dismissed. It is also submitted that the petitioner has no cause for complain inasmuch as he has been accommodated in Lakhimpur District at Bihpuria, which is hardly 20 Kms. away from Lakhimpur (Sadar). Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance in the case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vrs. State of U.P. and Ors. Reported in 2007 (8) SCC 150 to substantiate his submission that the allegation that the notifications dated, 17.10.2017 and 15.11.2017 were issued on the mere interference of the M.P. would not vitiate the transfer order inasmuch as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already held that any transfer on the recommendation of an MLA by itself will not vitiate the order. Reported in 2007 (8) SCC 150 to substantiate his submission that the allegation that the notifications dated, 17.10.2017 and 15.11.2017 were issued on the mere interference of the M.P. would not vitiate the transfer order inasmuch as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already held that any transfer on the recommendation of an MLA by itself will not vitiate the order. He submits that the order of transfer of an employee is a part of the service conditions and said order of transfer should not be interfered with lightly by a court of law in exercise of its discretionary powers unless the court finds that the order is malafide or that the service prohibits such order or that the authority who issued the order is not competent. In the present case, none of the three ingredients are attracted and therefore, no interference is required and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Learned Standing Counsel has also placed reliance in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh Vrs. G. Venkata Ratnam reported in (2008) 9 SCC 345 , Yomtum Ete Vrs. State of State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors. reported in 2009 (2) GLT 556 and in the case of M. Balakrishna Reddy Vrs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2007 (4) GLT 583. 5. Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5, while endorsing the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel, Excise Department submits that the petitioner has no vested right to claim to be posted in a particular place of posting. Infact, he submits that Bihpuria is within the jurisdiction of Lakhimpur District and therefore, the petitioner has no cause for complain in the notification dated, 15.11.2017. He also submits that the respondent No. 5, at no point of time had taken the assistance or had tried to bring political interference for retaining him at his new place of posting and therefore, the allegation made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 has violated the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 by bringing in the influence of the MP for issuance of the notification dated, 17.10.2017 and 15.11.2017 is not correct. It is submitted that in the present writ petition, there is no challenge to the competency to issue transfer order and there is no allegation of violation of statutory rule nor is there any allegation of malafide. It is submitted that in the present writ petition, there is no challenge to the competency to issue transfer order and there is no allegation of violation of statutory rule nor is there any allegation of malafide. In that view of the matter, the petitioner has no right to claim to be posted in a particular area and therefore, the writ petition being without merit deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions forwarded by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 7. This court has perused the records produced by the learned Standing Counsel, Excise Department. A perusal of the records indicate that one Ram Prasad Sarmah, Member of Parliament has written to the Minister, Excise Department, Assam on 04.10.2017, requesting for stay of the transfer of the respondent No. 5 on the ground that the respondent No. 5 is doing a commendable job in checking smuggling of liquor from Arunachal Pradesh and has a good public rapport in the area. It was on the basis of the said note written by the M.P. that the notification dated 17.10.2017 staying the earlier notification dated 20.09.2017 was issued. Further perusal of the records would indicate that thereafter, the respondents has proceeded to issue the notification dated, 15.11.2017 whereby the respondent No. 5 was posted at Lakhimpur (Sadar) and the petitioner was posted at Bihpuria, Excise Circle. 8. It is already a settled position of law that an order of transfer of a Government servant can be interfered/indicted in a writ discretion in rare and exceptional cases provided such transfer orders are issued by an authority incompetent to do so, if there is violation of any statutory rules, if there is gross discrimination between the writ petitioner vis-à-vis similarly situated officers/employee and if the transfer order is actuated by malafide. 9. On a perusal of the records, this court is unable to trace that the issuance of the notification dated, 15.11.2017 has been vitiated by any malafide intentions. Further, this court has also considered the note dated, 04.10.2017 written by the M.P. A perusal of the same indicates that the request for retention of the respondent No. 5 was made in public interest considering the commendable job made by the respondent No. 5 and his public rapport. Further, this court has also considered the note dated, 04.10.2017 written by the M.P. A perusal of the same indicates that the request for retention of the respondent No. 5 was made in public interest considering the commendable job made by the respondent No. 5 and his public rapport. The allegation that the notification dated, 20.09.2017 was stayed by the notification dated, 17.10.2017 on the note of the M.P. to accommodate the respondent No. 5 does not hold water inasmuch as it is the duty of the representative of the people to express the grievance of the people and if there is any complaint against an officer, the State Government is within its right to transfer such an employee. Therefore, there can be no hard and fast rule that an order of transfer in the interest of an M.P./MLA would be vitiated and it will depend on the facts and circumstances of individual case. In the present case, this court does not see any reason to come to a conclusion that the note of the M.P. was made with the malafide intention to accommodate the respondent No. 5. 10. This court is therefore, of the opinion that circumscription of the scope of interference with an order of transfer in exercise of judiciary review is no longer Respondent integra. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed however, with no order as to cost. 11. Return the records to Mr. P. N. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Excise Department.