the petitioner to Ext.P4 order of transfer cannot in these circumstances be entertained. Ext.R2(a) and the decision taken by the Chairman of the Board on the request made by the Joint Rubber Production Commissioner would indicate that the transfer of the petitioner to Guwahati was in the exigencies of service. Further on the terms of his appointment order, the petitioner was liable to serve anywhere in India. The respondents also state that the petitioner is the senior most Assistant Security Officer and that in view of the situation prevailing in Guwahati a decision was taken to make available his services at Guwahati. In the facts and circumstances of the case, transfer of the petitioner to Guwahati cannot in my opinion said to be arbitrary or illegal. The Board which is the employer has taken a decision to transfer the petitioner bearing in mind the need for the services of Security Officer at the Zonal Office, Guwahati. The petitioner's transfer to Guwahati cannot therefore be characterised as one which is not in the exigencies of service. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the challenge to Ext.P4. The Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
