Page No.# 1/8 GAHC040017682024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/606/2024 Tago Rilo Son of Late Tako Rilo, permanent resident of Village New Rilo Village, PO and PS Dumporijo, Upper Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh 791122 VERSUS The State of AP and 3 Ors represented by the Commissioner (Agriculture), Itanagar Civil Secretariat, PO and PS Itanagar, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar 791111 2:The Under Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Agriculture Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 791111 3:The Director Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Agriculture Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Krishi Bhawan Naharlagun 791110 4:Rode Bui Age: 0 Occupation : MLA 26 Dumporijo ST Assembly Constituency cum Advisor Social Justice Empowerment and Tribal Affairs Labour and Employment resident near Arunachal Pradesh State Legislative Assembly Po and PS Itanagar Page No.# 2/8 Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh 79111 Advocate for the Petitioner : Binter Picha, Tao Tarin,Jumgam Jini Advocate for the Respondent : Lissing Perme, SC (Agriculture) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 08-06-2026 08.06.2026 Heard Mr. Binter Picha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lissing Perme, learned Standing Counsel, Agriculture Department, appearing for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. 2. As per the Office Note, dated 18.01.2026, notice upon the respondent No. 4 has been duly served. 3. The petitioner is an Agriculture Development Officer posted in the Office of the Agriculture Development Officer, Daporijo. The petitioner is aggrieved by the transfer and posting order dated 28.10.2024, issued on 25.11.2024 by the Commissioner (Agriculture), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, whereby the petitioner was transferred from the Office of the Agriculture Development Officer, Daporijo, Upper Subansiri District to Hawai, Anjaw District. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has assailed the said transfer order by filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4, who is the MLA of 26 Dumporijo ST Assembly Constituency, had requested the petitioner to Page No.# 3/8 support and campaign for his candidature in the State Assembly Election, 2024. However, being a Government employee, the petitioner had politely declined to participate in any election campaign. It is projected that respondent No. 4 was aggrieved by such refusal and accordingly, by a U.O. (i.e. Unofficial Order) Note dated 08.07.2024, recommended the transfer of the petitioner from the post of Agriculture Development Officer, Daporijo, Upper Subansiri District to Hawai, Anjaw District. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this writ petition, the petitioner has annexed a list of 21 (twenty-one) personnel who were regular teachers, who were also transferred at the behest of respondent No. 4. It is submitted that those persons too are victims of politically motivated transfers. 5. It is further projected that pursuant to the said U.O. Note dated 08.07.2024, the respondent authorities, by the impugned transfer order bearing No. AGRI/11011(12)1/2022 dated 28.10.2024, issued on 25.11.2024, transferred 3 (three) officers, including the petitioner, whose name appears at Serial No. 1 of the said transfer order. 6. In support of his contention that the transfer was effected pursuant to the U.O. Note circulated by respondent No. 4, the petitioner has placed reliance on the RTI reply dated 05.12.2024, annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-6 (Series). 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the State respondents would be at liberty to transfer the petitioner. However, the decision to transfer the petitioner ought to have been taken independently and not at the instance of respondent No. 4. It is submitted that by transferring the petitioner at the behest of respondent No. 4, the respondent authorities have mortgaged their conscience to political bosses and therefore, the transfer was Page No.# 4/8 made on extraneous considerations, as the respondent authorities had succumbed to the dictates of respondent No. 4, who is the sitting MLA. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Shri Gyati Pushang vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors., WP(C) No. 467/2023, decided on 22.11.2023. In the said case, a transfer order issued at the behest of a Minister of the State was set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner has a 76-year-old ailing mother and that his son is presently studying in Class- XII. Therefore, it is contended that if the transfer is effected, the education of the petitioner's son would be adversely affected and the petitioner would be prevented from taking care of his aged and ailing mother. 9. The learned Standing Counsel for the Agriculture Department has submitted that notwithstanding the allegations of political victimisation, the petitioner has been serving as Agriculture Development Officer at Daporijo, Upper Subansiri District, for more than 10 years and therefore, the mere existence of a U.O. Note issued by the local MLA would not vitiate the transfer order. 10. Considered that submissions as well as the case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. It is not disputed in the present case that the petitioner has been serving as Agriculture Development Officer, Daporijo, for more than 10 (ten) years as on date. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 on 24.11.2025, it has been stated that the petitioner has been posted at Daporijo, Upper Subansiri District, for more than 10 (ten) years. Taking note of the said stand of respondents No. 1, 2 and 3, this Court is reminded of the decision of Page No.# 5/8 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and Another vs. Gobardhan Lal, reported in (2004) 11 SCC 402, wherein it was held that a government servant has no vested right to be posted at a place of his choice, nor can he insist on being posted at one place or another. 12. Again, in the case of Shilpi Bose vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the Courts should not interfere with transfer orders made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless such orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or are vitiated by mala fides. It was further observed that a Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place and is liable to be transferred from one place to another. The Supreme Court further held that even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or administrative guidelines, the Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the same. 13. In the present case, the petitioner has alleged that he refused to campaign for respondent No. 4. During the course of submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that although the 26 Dumporijo ST Assembly Constituency covers a part of Upper Subansiri District, respondent No. 4 is not the elected MLA for Daporijo. Accordingly, it is submitted that respondent No. 4 had overreached his authority and upon the petitioner's refusal to assist in political campaigning, targeted the petitioner with political vendetta. It is further alleged that respondent No. 4 moved the U.O. Note seeking the petitioner's transfer along with several other teachers. 14. In that context, this Court is reminded of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Masood Ahmad vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in Page No.# 6/8 (2007) 8 SCC 150. 15. Even assuming that respondent No. 4 had approached the petitioner to assist him in election campaigning which the petitioner had refused, nonetheless, it cannot be said that, after having served at the same place for more than 10 (ten) years, the U.O. Note issued by respondent No. 4 would by itself constitute mala fides so as to invalidate the transfer of the petitioner from Daporijo. 16. The State of Arunachal Pradesh has a transfer policy prescribing a normal tenure of posting of 2 (two) years. As the petitioner has remained at the same place of posting for more than 10 (ten) years, a mere allegation that the transfer is mala fide would not suffice for this Court to interfere with or stay the transfer, as doing so would prevent the State from enforcing its transfer policy. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon paragraphs 20 to 24 of the judgment in Shri Gyati Pushang (supra). In the said judgment, this Court had relied upon the case of Tarlochan Dev Sharma vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in (2001) 6 SCC 260, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that senior officers occupying key positions, such as Secretaries, are not expected to mortgage their own discretion, volition and decision-making authority, nor to yield to the dictates of politicians in carrying out commands having no sanction in law. 18. Similar observations were made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Purtabpore Company Ltd. vs. Cane Commissioner of Bihar & Ors., reported in (1969) 1 SCC 308, wherein it was observed that statutory authorities should not mortgage their conscience to political bosses. 19. However, the facts of Shri Gyati Pushang (supra) are distinguishable from Page No.# 7/8 those of the present case. In the said case, the petitioner therein was first transferred by order dated 28.07.2021, thereafter by another transfer order dated 17.06.2022 and after joining at the second place of posting, he was again transferred by a third order dated 22.09.2023 to a different place of posting. It was in those peculiar facts and circumstances that this Court had interfered with the transfer order and made the observations, which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 20. In the present case, however, the petitioner has remained posted as Agriculture Development Officer, Daporijo, for more than 10 (ten) years and cannot claim any vested right to continue at the same station. Transfer being an incidence of service, the respondent authorities possess ample power to transfer the petitioner from one place to another in the exigencies of service. Since the transfer has been effected after the petitioner remained at the same station for more than a decade, this Court would not closely scrutinise the transfer merely because the process may have been initiated through a U.O. Note issued by the respondent No. 4. 21. It is not that this Court approves transfers being made at the behest of an MLA. However, in the facts of the present case, where the petitioner has continued at the same place of posting for more than 10 (ten) years, the U.O. Note issued by respondent No. 4 is not found sufficient to vitiate the transfer order. 22. Accordingly, the decision in Shri Gyati Pushang (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, does not advance the case of the petitioner in the peculiar facts of the present case. 23. The petitioner has also projected that he has a 76-year-old ailing mother. Page No.# 8/8 In the circumstances, while this Court is inclined to direct the petitioner to join at his transferred place of posting, it shall remain open to the petitioner to submit a representation before the Head of the Department seeking consideration for transfer to a station from where he can travel to his home within approximately 4 (four) hours of journey. 24. Upon such a representation being made, the Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Agriculture Department, shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made in this order. 25. The respondent authorities shall grant the petitioner a reasonable time to join at his transferred place of posting. 26. The writ petition stands closed, in the terms indicated above. Comparing Assistant