Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010075782025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./41/2025 SMTI SANJANA MEDHI GOSWAMI W/O SHRI NAYAN JYOTI GOSWAMI, POSTED AT ASSAM GAS BASED POWER STATION, DIBRUGARH, P.O. BOKULONI CHARIALI, P.S. DULIAJAN, PIN 786191, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF POWER, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 110001 2:THE NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD. (NEEPCO) REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR CAMP-NEEPCO BHAWAN R.G. BARUAH ROAD GUWAHATI 781005 3:THE DIRECTOR (PERSONNEL) NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD. CAMP NEEPCO BHAWAN R.G. BARUAH ROAD GUWAHATI 78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P MAHANTA, M DAS Advocate for the Respondent : MR D SENAPATI, DY.S.G.I.,FOR CAVEATOR,MR H K SARMA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM Page No.# 2/4 ORDER 09.04.2025 Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Agarwal, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. Senapati, learned counsel representing the respondents. By filing this petition the writ petitioner as review petitioner, is seeking review/recall of the judgment and order dated 25.03.2025 passed in WP(C) No.528/2025 wherein, the transfer order dated 15.01.2025 by means of which she was transferred from Bokuloni, Dibrugarh, Assam and posted as HOP, PHPS, Doimukh, was put under challenge on various grounds. After considering the arguments of learned counsel for both the sides and upon going through the materials on record, this Court had declined to interfere with the impugned transfer order on the grounds stated therein. The writ petitioner was, however, granted liberty to file a fresh representation before the competent authority, ventilating her grievance in the matter, subject to joining in the new place of posting at Doimukh. Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that as per Clause 15.1 of the transfer policy, special grounds like medical cases, inconvenience of family members, education of children etc. are to be considered as relevant factors for issuing order of transfer and therefore, all issues coming within the fold of clause 15.1 of the transfer policy was required to be considered by a specially constituted committee before issuing the transfer order dated 15.01.2025. However, in the present case, although the petitioner had submitted a representation before the authorities on 22.01.2025 raising issues within the realm of clause 15.1, the same was neither placed nor considered by the specially constituted committee as per requirement of the Page No.# 3/4 norms. On the contrary, the representation was rejected by the respondent No.3 on 24.01.2025 who was not competent to do so. It is also the submission of Mr. Mahanta that the arguments made by the respondents’ counsel regarding the applicability of the “special diseases clause” have been incorrectly projected leading to an erroneous finding recorded by the Court. Mr. Mahanta, therefore, submits that on the abovementioned two grounds, the impugned judgment and order dated 25.03.2025 calls for a review. Responding to the above arguments, Mr. Agarwal, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that as per clause 15.1, functional criticality i.e. exigency of service, will over-ride all other considerations. Since the petitioner has been transferred on the ground of functional criticality, clause 15.1 would not have any applicability in this case. That apart, submits Mr. Agarwal, clause 15.1 would be applicable only in case of special request for transfer and not in case of routine transfer, as in the case of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has already spent 16 years in the same place of posting and she does not qualify for further consideration under clause 15.1. Mr. Agarwal has, therefore, argued that in the garb of this review petition, the petitioner is seeking a re-hearing of the writ petition itself which is impermissible in the eyes of law. The learned senior counsel for the respondents, therefore, submits that since liberty to file fresh representation has already been granted to her by this Court, the review petition be dismissed. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have also gone through the materials available on record. A perusal of clause 15.1 leaves no room for doubt that functional criticality i.e. exigencies of service of the institution would have an over-riding effect and Page No.# 4/4 priority over any other ground mentioned in clause 15.1. Therefore, the decision of the authorities to transfer the petitioner to Doimukh in the exigencies of service of the institution cannot be termed as one issued in contravention of clause 15.1 of the transfer policy. In so far as the other ground, namely, erroneous interpretation of “special disease” clause by this Court is concerned, entering into the said aspect of the matter would call for re-hearing of the writ petition which would not be permissible in a review petition. This Court has passed the judgment and order dated 25.03.2025 after analysing the facts and circumstances of the case and by furnishing sufficient reasons. As such, the said decision would not be open for reconsideration again by the same court, in a review petition. In view of the above, this Review Petition is held to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant