JUDGMENT : KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J. Heard Mr. C Bhattacharyaa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R Sekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3. 2. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 14.02.2025, whereby he was transferred from the post of Deputy Manager, Finance, Head Officer, F&A to Assam State Warehousing Corporation, Silchar center, in order to perform the functions of accounting matters of the Silchar and Karimganj centers. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on 10.08.2017 as Deputy Manager, Finance at the Accounts Branch of the Head Office of the Assam State Warehousing Corporation on contractual basis. 4 . Thereafter, the respondent Assam State Warehousing Corporation by order dated 10.08.2017 engaged the service of the petitioner as Deputy Manager Finance (Contractual) in the Office of the Managing Director, Assam State Warehousing Corporation, Guwahati. 5. Thereafter, the service of the petitioner was regularized by order dated 17.02.2021. In the meantime, by order dated 14.02.2025, the Managing Director of the Assam State Warehousing Corporation, respondent transferred the petitioner from the said post of Deputy Manager, Finance, Head Office to Silchar Center. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid transfer, the present writ petition has been filed. 7. Mr. C Bhattacharyaa, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner having been appointed to a post which is not transferable as per the terms and conditions of the subject Advertisement read with the Engagement Order in question, the impugned transfer order is bad in law. He further submits that by the impugned transfer order, the petitioner has been transferred to Silchar center to perform the functions of accounting matters of the two centers in question and as such, the petitioner has been demoted to the utter prejudice of his service prospects. He further submits that under Section 20 of the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962 [hereinafter referred to as the 1962 Act] read with Regulation 68 and 69 of the Assam State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulation, 1989 [hereinafter referred to as the Regulation, 1989], the Board of Directors being the competent authority to order transfer, the impugned transfer by the Managing Director is without jurisdiction. 8. Per contra, Mr. R Shekhar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 8. Per contra, Mr. R Shekhar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that though initially the service of the petitioner was on contractual basis as per the engagement letter dated 10.08.2017, however, the same having been regularized later on, the service conditions applicable to the staff of the respondent Corporation are applicable. He further submits that under the existing Regulations, it is the Managing Director, who being the appointing authority for the post held by the petitioner is competent and authorized to transfer the petitioner. He accordingly submits that the impugned transfer order having been issued by the Managing Director, the same is valid. He further submits that the impugned transfer order is made in the interest of the respondent Corporation due to exigencies of service and hence, the same ought not to be interfered with. 9. In support of the aforesaid submissions, Mr. R Shekhar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 relied upon the following decisions – (i) Roshal Lal Tandon -Vs- Union of India , reported in (1968) 1 SCR 185 (ii) Union Public Service Commission -Vs- Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela & Others , reported in 2006 (2) Supreme 221 (iii) Rajesh Kumar Singh -Vs- District Basic Education Officer and Others , reported in 2022 4 ADJ 535 . 10. I have given my prudent considerations to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. I have also duly considered the case laws cited at the bar. 11. Apt at the outset to refer to the subject Advertisement and the Engagement Order of the petitioner to the post of Deputy Manager, Finance in the Office of the Managing Director, Assam State Warehousing Corporation. 12. Advertisement dated 27.07.2017 reads as hereunder – “ADVERTISEMENT The Assam State Warehousing Corporation (ASWC) invites candidates for WALK-IN-INTERVIEW for engagement of I (one) Deputy Manager, Finance, on CONTRACTUAL BASIS for supervision of various works in Finance & Accounts branch of the Corporation including schemes under RIDF/APART Project etc. The applicants shall have no claim in future for absorbing under ASWC. The applicants when selected will be stationed at the Head office of the Corporation at Amarabati Path, Christian Basti, Guwahati-781005. The applicants shall have no claim in future for absorbing under ASWC. The applicants when selected will be stationed at the Head office of the Corporation at Amarabati Path, Christian Basti, Guwahati-781005. The applicants have to appear for a WALK-IN-INTERVIEW along with all Certificates and Testimonials (in original) and a set of Xerox copy of all Certificates No T.A/D.A. shall be paid by the Corporation for the purpose. The undersigned reserves the right to accept or reject any or all applications without assigning any reason thereof. ELIGIBILITY & QUALIFICATIONS :- 1). Chartered Accountant/Master Degree in Commerce (Accountancy/Finance) from a recognized University. 2). Minimum 5 (five) years experience in a reputed Organization in the line of similar nature of works. 3). Working knowledge of Computer including Tally and well-versed in ONLINE systems. 4). Fixed remuneration: Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand) only p.m. The WALK-IN-INTERVIEW will be held from 10.00 a.m, onwards on 10.08.2017 in the Head Office of Assam State Warehousing Corporation, "Pannyagar Bhawan", Amarabati Path, Christian Basti, Guwahati-781005. Sd/- MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION A.B.PATH, CHRISTIAN BASTI,GUWAHATI-781005. Janasanyog/854/17” 13. Engagement Order dated 10.08.2017 reads as hereunder – “ASSAM STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION AMARABATI PATH CHRISTIAN BASTI. GUWAHATI-781005 ORDER In pursuance of the decision of the Selection Committee of Assam State Warehousing Corporation (ASWC) held on 10-08-2017 for selection to the post of Deputy Manager Finance (Contractual) in the office of the Managing Director. Assam State, Warehousing Corporation Guwahati Shri Naba Jyoti Mishra is hereby engaged at a fixed remuneration of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand) only per month for a period of 6 (six) months from the date of joining subject to the following terms and conditions:- ? That, he will render his service at the Finance & Accounts Branch, Head office of the ASWC. 2). That, the engagement is purely temporary for a period of 6 (six) months only and terminable at any time without assigning any reason thereof. 3). That, he will not be entitled for any other benefit except the fixed monthly remuneration. 4). That, he will render his services at the category of Deputy Manger, Finance, at the Head office of the ASWC. 5). He will not leave his station of engagement of the ASWC without prior permission of the ASWC authority. 6). He will abide by the Rules, Regulations, Orders and instructions of the ASWC 7). 4). That, he will render his services at the category of Deputy Manger, Finance, at the Head office of the ASWC. 5). He will not leave his station of engagement of the ASWC without prior permission of the ASWC authority. 6). He will abide by the Rules, Regulations, Orders and instructions of the ASWC 7). He is to report for his duty to the Manger, Finance & Accounts, ASWC, Head Office immediately (Munindra Sharma, ACS) MANAGING DIRECTOR Dtd. Guwahati/10-08-2017” 14. Reading the aforesaid Advertisement and the Engagement Order in question, it is apparent that the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis for a fixed term to the post of Deputy Manager, Finance at the Head Office of the respondent Corporation. It is further apparent that the Advertisement as well as the Engagement Order was issued by the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation. 15. It appears that after the six months of the initial contractual period were over, the service of the petitioner has been extended from time to time. 16. It appears that thereafter the service of the petitioner was regularized by order dated 17.02.2021, which reads as hereunder – “OFFICE OF THE ASSAM STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION CHRISTIAN BASTI, GUWAHATI-781005 ORDER In pursuance of the decision of the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 4th December, 2020, at ASWC, Head Office, Sri Naba Jyoti Mishra who Was engaged as Deputy Manager, Finance in ASWC on contractual basis on 10/08/2017 is hereby regularized as Deputy Manager, Finance subject to discharge without notice & assigning any reason thereof under Finance & Accounts Branch of Assam State Warehousing Corporation in the scale of pay of Rs. 12,000/-40,000/- pm and Grade Pay of Rs 6,100/- pm plus other allowances as may be admissible under the rules of this corporation The appointment is subject to satisfactory police verification of character and antecedents and physical fitness certificate from a registered medical practitioner. MANAGING DIRECTOR Date: 17-02-2021” 17. Reading the aforesaid Regularization Order, it is apparent that the service of the petitioner which was on contractual basis, was thereafter regularized by the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation by the aforesaid order as Deputy Manager, Finance. 18. It appears that thereafter, while the petitioner was performing his duty in the Head Office as Deputy Manager, Finance, by the impugned order dated 14.02.2025, he was transferred from the Head Office to the Silchar center. 19. 18. It appears that thereafter, while the petitioner was performing his duty in the Head Office as Deputy Manager, Finance, by the impugned order dated 14.02.2025, he was transferred from the Head Office to the Silchar center. 19. The impugned transfer order dated 14.02.2025 reads as hereunder – “OFFICE OF THE ASSAM STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION CHRISTIAN BASTI GUWAHATI-781005 ORDER In the interest of the Assam State Warehousing Corporation (ASWC), Sri Nabajyoti Mishra, Deputy Manager, Finance, Head Office Finance & Accounts branch is hereby transferred and posted at ASWC, Silchar Centre with immediate effect and until further orders, He is directed to perform the function of accounting matters of the Silchar & Karimganj Centre in consultation with the concerned Warehouse Managers of both the Centres. He is asked to handover the all-official files, registers etc. to the Manager, Finance & Accounts before proceed to Silchar Centre. Managing Director Date: 14-02-2025” 20. Reading the aforesaid transfer order, it is apparent that the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation transferred the petitioner from the Head Office to the Silchar center to perform the functions of the accounting matters of the Silchar and Karimganj centers. 21. The issues that fall for determination in the instant writ petition are whether the post of Deputy Manager, Finance as held by the petitioner, is transferable or not and if the same is transferable, whether the same is issued by the competent authority or not and if the same is issued by the competent authority, whether the same warrants any interference from this Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 22. In order to ascertain the first issue, i.e., whether the post of Deputy Manager, Finance, is transferable or not, it is apposite to refer to the relevant provisions of the Regulation, 1989. 23. Class-II of Chapter-II of the Regulation, 1989 reads as hereunder – “Class-II It shall consist of the following posts and cadres: 1. Area Manager and Deputy Manager, 2. Warehouse Manager, Grd. I, 3. Warehouse Manager, Grd. II, 4. Warehouse Manager, Grd. III, 5. Assistant Accounts Officer, 6. Cashier, 7. Accountant, 8. Superintendent, 9. Internal Auditor, 10. Project Engineer, 11. Assistant Engineer, 12. Technical Assistant, 13. Dues Recovery Officer” 24. Reading the aforesaid, it appears that the post of Deputy Manager, Warehouse Manager, Accountant, amongst others, are all classified under the same class. 25. Warehouse Manager, Grd. II, 4. Warehouse Manager, Grd. III, 5. Assistant Accounts Officer, 6. Cashier, 7. Accountant, 8. Superintendent, 9. Internal Auditor, 10. Project Engineer, 11. Assistant Engineer, 12. Technical Assistant, 13. Dues Recovery Officer” 24. Reading the aforesaid, it appears that the post of Deputy Manager, Warehouse Manager, Accountant, amongst others, are all classified under the same class. 25. Regulation 8 under Chapter IV reads as hereunder – “CHAPTER-IV APPOINTING AUTHORITY: 8. i) Appointment to Class-I. posts shall be made by the MANAGING DIRECTORS on the basis of selection made by the Selection Committee with Prior approval by the Board of Directors of the Executive Committee. ii) Appointment to the posts of Class. II.III and IV SERVICES shall be made by the MANAGING DIRECTOR on the basis of selection made by the Selection Committee.” 26. Reading the aforesaid, it appears that the Managing Director is the appointing authority to the post of Deputy Manager. 27. Regulation 12 of the Regulation, 1989 reads as hereunder – “GENERAL CONDITIONS OF SERVICE 12. i) No person who has not completed 18(eighteen) years of age shall be eligible for employment in the service of the Corporation. ii) Every employee of the corporation shall be required to contribute to the PROVIDENT FUND of the ASSAM STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION according to Provident Fund Rules. iii) The employee is the whole-time employee of the corporation and no employee shall without previous permission of the BOARD OF DIRECTORS engage in any other trade, business or accept any other employment while on duty or on leave. iv) The right to grant promotion or make confirm any employee shall west in the BOARD OF DIRECTOR AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, as the case may be. v) An employee will be responsible and accountable for all his acts, deeds and things done in connection with the works of the duties, entrusted in him and he should not act, work and behave in any way and manner which may harm the cause and interest of the corporation and may prove prejudicial to or against the interest of the corporation. vi) An employee should not divulge any confidential information of the corporation that might come to his/her knowledge during the course of his service. vi) An employee should not divulge any confidential information of the corporation that might come to his/her knowledge during the course of his service. vii) A member of the service shall be liable to be transferred in the interest of the corporation if the appointing authority so decides in such case the employee shall not have any option for such transfer and posting viii) An employee should work only for the corporation and protect its interest and while remaining in the service of the corporation he should not deal or have any connection with any firm, company any business or trade organization either directly or indirectly and he should not run or conduct or privately as an individual concern any trade, activities and business of the similar nature where the WAREHOUSING CORPORATION in engaged. ix) The Appointing Authority may terminate the service of a temporary employee who is in continuous period of service of the corporation for a period not exceeding 3 yrs. by issue of a Notice in writing as specified in regulation No. 22 for the lapses or misconduct stated in sub-regulation No.1(a), 1(b), 1(c) of the aforesaid regulation. x) Field officers posted in warehouses and employees handling cash shall furnish security in cash or Fidelity Guarantee Insurance or both as may be prescribed by the MANAGING DIRECTOR.” 28. Reading Regulation 12 (vii), it is apparent that the post of Deputy Manager is transferable. 29. It is well settled law that once a member appointed to a contractual post is regularized, the terms and conditions under the statute governing such service are applicable. 30. Apt to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Roshan Lal (Supra). Paragraph-6 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced herein for ready reference. “6. We pass on to consider the next contention of the petitioner that there was a contractual right as regards the condition of service applicable to the petitioner at the time he entered Grade 'D' and the condition of service could not be altered to his disadvantage afterwards by the notification issued by the Railway Board. “6. We pass on to consider the next contention of the petitioner that there was a contractual right as regards the condition of service applicable to the petitioner at the time he entered Grade 'D' and the condition of service could not be altered to his disadvantage afterwards by the notification issued by the Railway Board. It was said that the order of the Railway Board dated January 25, 1958, Annexure 'B', laid down that promotion to Grade 'C' from Grade 'D' was to be based on seniority-cum-suitability and this condition of service was contractual and could not be altered thereafter to the prejudice of the petitioner. In our opinion, there is no warrant for this argument. It is true that the origin of Government service is contractual. There is an offer and acceptance in every case. But once appointed to his post or office the Government servant acquires a status and his rights and obligations are no longer determined by consent of both parties, but by statute or statutory rules which may be framed and altered unilaterally by the Government. In other words, the legal position of a Government servant is more one of status than of contract. The hallmark of status is the attachment to a legal relationship of rights and duties imposed by the public law and not by mere agreement of the parties. The emolument of the Government servant and his terms of service are governed by statute or statutory rules which may be unilaterally altered by the Government without the consent of the employee. It is true that Article 311 Imposes constitutional restrictions upon the power of removal granted to the President and the Governor under Article 310. But it is obvious that the relationship between the Government and Its servant is not like an ordinary contract of service between a master and servant. The legal relationship is something entirely different, something in the nature of status. It is much more than a purely contractual relationship voluntarily entered in to between the parties. The duties of status are fixed by the law and in the enforcement of these duties society has an interest. In the language of jurisprudence status is a condition of membership of a group of which powers and duties are exclusively determined by law and not by agreement between the parties concerned. The duties of status are fixed by the law and in the enforcement of these duties society has an interest. In the language of jurisprudence status is a condition of membership of a group of which powers and duties are exclusively determined by law and not by agreement between the parties concerned. The matter is clearly stated by Salmond and Williams on Contracts as follows: ‘So we may find both contractual and status-obligations produced by the same transaction. The one transaction may result in the creation not only of obligations defined by the parties and so pertaining to the sphere of contract but also and concurrently of obligations defined by the law itself, and so pertaining to the sphere of status. A contract of service between employer and employee, while for the most part pertaining exclusively to the sphere of contract, pertains also to that of status so far as the law itself has seen fit to attach to this relation compulsory incidents, such as liability to pay compensation for accidents. The extent to which the law is content to leave matters within the domain of contract to be determined by the exercise of the autonomous authority of the parties themselves, or thinks fit to bring the matter within the sphere of status by authoritatively determining for itself the contents of the relationship, is a matter depending on considerations of public policy. In such contracts as those of service the tendency in modern times is to withdraw the matter more and more from the domain of contract into that of status.’ (Salmond and Williams on Contracts, 2nd Edn. P. 12)” 31. Reading of the aforesaid judgment, I am of the unhesitant view that since the service of the petitioner has been regularized, the conditions of service as provided under the Regulation, 1989 shall apply to the petitioner. Hence, the post to which initially the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis, the same having been regularized, the petitioner being governed by the conditions of service as provided under Regulation, 1989, is entitled to be transferred in accordance with Regulation 12 (vii) of the Regulation, 1989. Accordingly, the issue No. 1 is answered against the petitioner. 32. This brings me to the 2 nd issue, i.e., whether the impugned transfer order is issued by the competent authority or not. Accordingly, the issue No. 1 is answered against the petitioner. 32. This brings me to the 2 nd issue, i.e., whether the impugned transfer order is issued by the competent authority or not. Reiterated that it is the Managing Director, who, being the appointing authority, is the competent authority under the Regulation, 1989 to transfer any staff of the respondent Corporation holding the post of Deputy Manager in the interest of the Corporation. 33. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is the Board, under Section 20 of the 1962 Act read with Regulations 68 and 69 of the Regulation, 1989, who is the competent authority to issue the transfer order is totally misplaced. 34. Section 20 of the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962 reads as hereunder – “20. Management of a State Warehousing Corporation – (1) The general superintendence and management of the affairs of a State Warehousing Corporation shall vest in a board of directors which shall consist of the following, namely:- (a) five directors nominated by the Central Warehousing Corporation, of whom one shall be nominated in consultation with the State Bank and one at least shall be a non-official; (b) five directors nominated by the State Government; and (c) a managing director, appointed by the State Government in consultation with the directors referred to in clauses (a) and (b) and [under intimation to ] with the previous approval of the Central Warehousing Corporation. (2) The chairman of the board of directors shall be appointed by the State Government from among the directors of the Sate Warehousing with the previous approval of the Central Warehousing Corporation (3) The managing director shall – (a) exercise such powers and perform such duties as the board of directors or the State Warehousing Corporation may entrust or delegate to him, and (b) receive such salary and allowances as the State Warehousing Corporation may in consultation with the Central Warehousing Corporation, and with previous approval of the State Government fix. (4) The board of directors shall act on business principles having regard to public interest and shall be guided by such instructions on questions of policy as may be given to them by the State Government or the Central Warehousing corporation. (4) The board of directors shall act on business principles having regard to public interest and shall be guided by such instructions on questions of policy as may be given to them by the State Government or the Central Warehousing corporation. (5) If any doubt arises as to whether a question is or is not a question of policy or if the State Government and the Central Warehousing Corporation give conflicting instructions, the matter shall be referred to the Central Government whose decision thereon shall be final (6) The directors of a State Warehousing Corporation, other than the managing director shall be entitled to receive by way of remuneration such sums as may be prescribed. Provided that no official director shall be entitled to receive any remuneration other than any allowances admissible to him under the rules regulating his conditions of service (7) The term of office of and the manner of filling casual vacancies among, directors shall be such as may be prescribed.” 35. Reg. 68 and 69 of the Regulation, 1989 reads as hereunder – “68. RESIDUARY CONDITIONS OF SERVICE: Any matter relating to the conditions of service of any employee for which no provision is made in these regulations shall be determined by the Board of Directors. Provided that in deciding such matters, the Govt. of Assam’s decision rules, circulars and memoranda shall as far as possible and to such extent as may be considered appropriate, be the guiding principles.” 69. POWER OF RELAXARTION: Where the Board of Directors satisfied that the operation of any of these regulations causes undue hardship, in any particular case. The Board of Directors may modify or relax the requirement of that regulation to such extent and subject to such conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. Provided that the case of any employee shall not be dealt with in manner less favorable to him than, provided in the Regulation.” 36 . Reading the aforesaid provision of the Act, it is apparent that it is the general superintendence and management of the affairs of the respondent Corporation that is vested in the Board of Directors and the same consists of five Directors nominated by the Central Warehousing Corporation, five directors nominated by the State Government and a Managing Director. Reading the aforesaid provision of the Act, it is apparent that it is the general superintendence and management of the affairs of the respondent Corporation that is vested in the Board of Directors and the same consists of five Directors nominated by the Central Warehousing Corporation, five directors nominated by the State Government and a Managing Director. It is further apparent that the Managing Director under the aforesaid provision shall exercise such power and perform such duty as the Board of Directors or the respondent Corporation may entrust or delegate to him. It is further clear from the above that Regulations 68 and 69 of the Regulation 1989 provide the residuary condition of service and power of relaxation. Hence, the aforesaid provisions of law are of no consequence in the issue in hand. In the present case, the impugned transfer order was admittedly issued by the Managing Director. Accordingly, the 2nd issue is also answered against the petitioner. 37 . Now, turning to the 3 rd issue, i.e., the scope and ambit of judicial review of the impugned transfer order, it is well settled that a transfer which is an incident of service is not to be interfered with by the Courts unless it is clearly shown to be arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer. 38. Reference is made to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Abani Kanta Ray -Vs- State of Orissa reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 169. Paragraph-10 of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder – “10. It is settled law that a transfer which is an incident of service is not to be interfered with by the courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer (See. N.K. Sing V. Union of India). The transfer of D.N. Mishra in this background being clearly in public interest, there was no permissible ground available to the Tribunal for quashing it. We are constrained to observe that the Division Bench of the Tribunal which made the impugned order dated 26-08-1993 quashing the transfer of D.N. Mishra on the ground of malice of the appellant as the Chairman of the Tribunal did so against the material on record and the facts beyond controversy which borders on judicial impropriety. We are constrained to observe that the Division Bench of the Tribunal which made the impugned order dated 26-08-1993 quashing the transfer of D.N. Mishra on the ground of malice of the appellant as the Chairman of the Tribunal did so against the material on record and the facts beyond controversy which borders on judicial impropriety. It may also be noted that such comments were made against the Chairman without even a notice to him and as stated in the order itself after treating the application for impleading the Chairman to be deemed rejected.” 39 . Reading the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that any transfer order made in public interest, the same warrants no interference from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In other words, once a person is appointed to a transferable post, the transfer from one place to another being an ordinary incident of service, the same does not result in any alteration of conditions of service to his disadvantage, and therefore the same ought not to be interfered, unless the same is vitiated by mala fides. 40. Keeping in mind the limited scope of judicial interference in transfer matters, apt to look into the defence set by the respondent in the affidavit-in- opposition filed before this Court, wherein paragraphs 7 to 16 of the aforesaid affidavit-in-opposition read as hereunder – “7. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 11 of the petition your deponent denies the same in totality and further begs to state herein that the first ground of the writ petitioner in agitating against his transfer order dated 14/02/2025 stating that his transfer out of the Head Office is contrary to the terms and conditions of his engagement is completely wrong as the writ petitioner failed to project the actual facts and circumstances of his transfer to the Silchar Center of the Corporation. In this connection it is very pertinent to mention herein that although the engagement of the Writ Petitioner was temporarily on contractual basis vide Order dated 10/08/2017 bearing Memo no:- AWC.1018/2017/Estt/12 issued under the signature of the Managing Director of the Corporation, it was mentioned that the Writ petitioner will render his service at the Finance and Accounts branch, at the head office of the corporation and that he will render his services in the category of Deputy Manager, Finance at the Head Office of the corporation. Yet the Writ Petitioner failed to highlight that in the same order of his engagement as referred herein at point number 6, it has been specifically mentioned that he will abide by the Rules, Regulations, Orders and Instructions of the corporation. However, the service of the writ petitioner was regularized vide order dated 17-02-2021. The Writ Petitioner surreptitiously highlighted only those conditions which are in his favor, whereas in fact as per the corporation's staff regulations 1989, in the general conditions of service at point no 12 (vii), which is reproduced below; it is clearly stated that an employee of the corporation can be transferred anywhere in the interest of the corporation. Regulation No. 12(vii): ‘a member of the service shall be liable to be transferred in the interest of the corporation if the appointing authority so decides in such case the employee shall not have any option for such transfer and posting’. 8. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 12 of the petition your deponent while denying the same begs to state herein that the second contention of the writ petitioner in his Writ petition assailing his transfer order to the Silchar Center of the corporation by stating that he has been transferred vide order dated 14/02/2025 to Silchar without any post is also completely wrong and is not based on the facts and circumstances of the case. In fact, the Writ petitioner is fully competent and very efficient in his role as the Deputy Manager of Finance and it is because of his efficiency he has been transferred to Silchar center to effectively manage the financial affairs of 2 locations namely Silchar Centre and the Karimganj Centre simultaneously. In fact, the Writ petitioner is fully competent and very efficient in his role as the Deputy Manager of Finance and it is because of his efficiency he has been transferred to Silchar center to effectively manage the financial affairs of 2 locations namely Silchar Centre and the Karimganj Centre simultaneously. He is therefore directed to perform the function of accounting matters of the Silchar and Karimganj centers of the applicant Corporation in the same classification of his grade which is Class-II, in consultation with the warehouse manager of both the centers. In this connection it is pertinent to mention herein that the transfer order dated 14/02/2025 is being issued to the petitioner because of administrative exigencies as the present Warehouse Manager who was looking after the affairs of both the Silchar Centre as well as the Karimganj Centre was retiring on 28/02/2025 on attaining the age of superannuation. And therefore, the petitioner was transferred to perform the function of the accounting matters in the Silchar and Karimganj centers, as well as to look after the affairs of the both the Centres simultaneously, i.e., Silchar and Karimganj, as in-charge till the time a new Warehouse Manager is appointed/posted at Silchar and Karimganj. 9. That your deponent completely denies the contents of the statements asserted and alleged by the petitioner in paragraph 13 and 14 of the petition and begs to state that this administrative exigency has arisen because of cost rationalization as new recruitment has been halted by the management of the corporation due to its present financial constraints and a policy decision has been taken to manage all its warehouses/centers with the existing staffs of the corporation. Your Deponent further states that already the corporation is understaffed and therefore due to the efficiency of the Writ petitioner he was transferred in the same post to perform the function of accounting matters of both the Silchar and Karimganj Centres in consultation with the Warehouse Manager, Silchar till the time of his superannuation on 28-02-2025 and thereafter additionally to look after the administrative and operational functions of both the Centres, i.e., Silchar and Karimganj; for which the corporation needed someone who can efficiently perform all the duties single handedly and there could not have been a better choice than the present writ petitioner to perform all the duties. Moreover, although the Warehouse Manager-Grade-III is addressed as such yet by virtue of the Staff Regulation No. 5 of the Assam State Warehousing Corporation 1989 under classification of Posts; the post of the Deputy Manager and the Warehouse Manager-Grade-III are both classified as Class-II officers. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that his transfer was without any post and the same is humiliating as his function in the same role has to be performed in consultation with the Warehouse Manager Grade III who is junior to him, is totally wrong and ill conceived, and the same has been mentioned as such to frustrate the legitimacy of his transfer which is completely as per the Regulations of the corporation. In this connection it is further stated that currently the deputy manager posts are empty in all departments. All deputy managers are posted in the warehouses, as In-Charge, for business needs of the corporation, and, as such, all departments like human resource department/ storage/ business and marketing /inspection & QC /Land & Property do not have deputy managers. Deputy Manager posts are deliberately kept empty for needs of the business as warehouses are revenue centers. Hence, similar decision is being taken in the case of the petitioner, and the same is a conscious decision to keep all deputy managers in the warehouses. All deputy managers except the petitioner is currently posted and operating from warehouse. 10. That the deponent offers no comments for the contents of the statements made in paragraph 15 as these are matters of records and further begs to state herein that on earlier occasion also similar transfer of persons from the accounts branch of the Head Office has taken place and employees have never agitated against this as it is completely as per provisions of the staff regulations of the applicant corporation. 11. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 16 of the petition your deponent has no comments to offer as these are matters of records of the case. 12. 11. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 16 of the petition your deponent has no comments to offer as these are matters of records of the case. 12. That the deponent while denying the contents of the statements made in paragraph 17 in totality begs to state herein that the allegation of the petitioner is totally unfounded and without any basis and it is only because of cost rationalization as stated herein-above, no new recruitment has taken place in the corporation for several years; which has ultimately resulted in 306 positions of vacancies, and therefore each vacancy due to retirement of employees or any other reason has to be looked after by the existing officers of the corporation and, as such, even Class-I officers are transferred and officiating as I/C Warehouse Managers which is a Class-II post. 13. That your deponent begs to state that the contents of the statements made in paragraph 18 of the petition is completely wrong and states that as the Writ petitioner was transferred vide order dated 14/02/2025 to officiate in the same grade and classification as Class-II officer in lieu of the retirement of the Warehouse Manager, Silchar, the question of humiliation of the petitioner doesn't exist at all, and he was rather posted in lieu of an employee who was supposed to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 28-02-2025 and further in view of the interim order dt. 25-02-2025 of this Hon'ble Court wherein the operation of the impugned order dated 14/02/2025 is stayed till the returnable date; the corporation had no option left but to extend the services of a retired employee who was a Warehouse Manager, Grade-III, temporarily for a further period of 3 (Three) months. This has caused a further dent in the financial burden of the corporation which is already under severe financial stress and the transfer order of the Writ petitioner was passed under compelling administrative exigency which was surreptitiously not highlighted by the Writ Petitioner and thus this act of the writ is misleading for wrongful gain of its purpose. 14. This has caused a further dent in the financial burden of the corporation which is already under severe financial stress and the transfer order of the Writ petitioner was passed under compelling administrative exigency which was surreptitiously not highlighted by the Writ Petitioner and thus this act of the writ is misleading for wrongful gain of its purpose. 14. That the deponent completely denies the contention of the petitioner from paragraph 20 to 23 and begs to state that the grounds of assailing the transfer order of the writ petitioner that the transfer of the petitioner has violated the norms, regulations and administrative fair play is completely based on wrong facts and circumstances. This is validated with another important fact that there are several employees in the corporation who have been promoted to the post of Area Manager/Deputy Manager and are effectively functioning in the role of Warehouse Manager Grade-1 in various warehouses/centers of the corporation. In this connection the deponent begs to bring into record the order dated 05/10/2024 issued vide memo no: AWC.140-A/88/Estt/Part/145 under the signature of the Managing Director of the corporation wherein several Warehouse Managers Grade-I are being promoted to the post of Area Manager/Deputy Manager with retrospective effect from 01/10/2024 until further orders. Thus, although the role nomenclature is Warehouse Manager Grade-I yet they are designated/promoted as Area Manager/Deputy Manager. 15. That the deponent begs to state and submit that the writ petitioner has not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and the interim order dated 25/02/2025 passed in WP (C) No. 1061 of 2025 has been obtained by the Writ Petitioner by suppression of material facts and without any legitimate ground thereby misleading this Hon'ble Court by not highlighting the actual facts and circumstances. The writ petitioner has suppressed the material facts from the scrutiny of this Hon'ble High Court by concealing the applicable regulations of the Assam State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulations 1989 and therefore it is a fit case wherein this Hon'ble Court may interfere with the interim order passed on 25/02/2025 as the same is obtained surreptitiously by the Writ Petitioner and dismiss the writ petition of the petitioner and further your deponent submits that there is no justifiable reason for the continuance of the interim stay order dt. 25-02-2025 passed in WP (C) No. 1061 of 2025 filed by the Writ Petitioner on the legitimate transfer order dated 14/02/2025 issued to the petitioner as the same has been passed for administrative fair play and exigency of operational challenges fueled by the huge number of vacancies under compelling financial stress of the corporation and as a whole the writ petition is liable for dismissal. The deponent further begs to state that at present, the total strength of Deputy Managers in the corporation is 12 nos. Out of the said 12 posts of Deputy Managers, 6 post are lying vacant at present and of the remaining 6 Deputy Managers, except the writ petitioner, all other Deputy Managers are presently posted as such at various Warehouses as In-Charge. 16. That the deponent submits that it has diligently passed the transfer order dated 14/02/2025 after considering the efficient performance of the petitioner in due consideration of such performance so as to give effect and utilize the full potential of the Writ Petitioner in managing the affairs of 2 nos. of centers namely Silchar and Karimganj centers for the smooth operation of the corporation. But the writ petitioner has suppressed and distorted the material facts while obtaining the interim stay order dt.25.2.2025. Thus, this instant writ petition is liable for dismissal.” 41. Reading the aforesaid averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition, it appears that due to exigencies of service, in the present case the impugned transfer order of the petitioner was issued. 42. In this connection the relevant records as placed before this Court by Mr. R Shekhar, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation are also perused. 43. It appears from the said records that after taking into consideration of the manpower shortage and current financial challenges and proper functioning of Silchar and Karimganj centers, the petitioner was decided to be transferred to Silchar center at the same capacity and grade as that of his current post, i.e., Deputy Manager, Finance to look after the accounting matters of Silchar and Karimganj centers. Hence, the petitioner having been regularized to a transferable post, he is entitled to be transferred from one place to another, the same being an ordinary incident of service. Hence, the petitioner having been regularized to a transferable post, he is entitled to be transferred from one place to another, the same being an ordinary incident of service. It is established from the records that the impugned transfer of the petitioner was in the exigencies of service, that apart, the petitioner having been transferred to Silchar center at the same capacity and grade as that of his current post, i.e., Deputy Manager, Finance to look after the accounting matters of Silchar and Karimganj centers, the same does not result in any alteration of conditions of service to the disadvantage of the petitioner. As such, any argument contrary to the same stands rejected. 44. I cannot also be unmindful of the fact that it is clearly established from the records that the impugned transfer of the petitioner was in the public rd interest. Accordingly, the 3 issue is also decided against the petitioner. 45. That being so, this Court finds no merit whatsoever in the instant writ petition. 46. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. 47. Resultantly, the interim order passed earlier in the present proceeding hereby stands vacated. 48. Return the records.