Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010150002025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3864/2025 MEJJO BAGRA AND 5 ORS. S/O MORMEK BAGRA, R/O NO. 5, BELI ZZEL APARTMENT, MOWB-II, NEAR CHIEF ENGINEER (PWD-WZ) OFFICE, P.O. AND P.S.- ITANAGAR, DIST- PAPUMPARE, ARUNACHAL PRADESH, PIN-791111 2: BASO DABI S/O SRI JUMBA DABI R/O AALO SIPU COLONY AALO (NT) WEST SIANG ALONG ARUNACHAL PRADESH PIN-791001 3: MRS. POPI COMDER TAK D/O DINGMA TAK R/O NIRJULI NERIST HEALTH UNIT NERIST CAMPUS NIRJULI COMPLEX P.O. AND P.S.- NIRJULI DIST- PAPUM PARE ARUNACHAL PRADESH PIN-791009 4: MRS. DUSU DIMING S/O SRI JUMBA DABI R/O NEAR SHIV MANDIR NIRJULI COMPLEX P.O. AND P.S.- DOIMUKH DIST- PAPUM PARE ARUNACHAL PRADESH PIN-791001 Page No.# 2/5 5: AMAR BAITHA S/O LATE BACHAN BAITHA R/O LIPU LIKABALI P.O. AND P.S.- LIKABALI DIST- WEST SIANG ARUNACHAL PRADESH PIN-791125 6: MRS. YOWA YAKUM W/O YOWA DON R/O HOUSE NO. 12 AMBA DOIMUKH YURKUM PAPUM PARE P.O. AND P.S.-DOIMUKH ARUNACHAL PRADESH PIN-79111 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS. THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110011 2:THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF INTEGRATED HQ OF MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (ARMY) SOUTH BLOCK DHQ PO NEW DELHI-110011 3:THE CHIEF OF NAVAL STAFF INTEGRATED HQ OF MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (NAVY) SOUTH BLOCK DHQ PO NEW DELHI-110011 4:THE SAINIK SCHOOLS SOCIETY THROUGH ITS HONORARY SECRETARY ROOM NO. 108 H SOUTH BLOCK MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SOUTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-11001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K SAIKIA, MR D.S. BHATTACHARYA Page No.# 3/5 Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. S S ROY (C.G.C) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 28.07.2025 Heard Shri D.S. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the petitioners, who have filed this application challenging the action of transferring one Colonel Anant Thapan as the new Principal of the Sanik School East Siang district in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This Court vide order dated 10.07.2025 had directed the learned counsel for the respondents to obtain instructions and both Shri S.S. Roy, learned CGC and Ms. A. Gayan, learned counsel appearing for the Sainik School have obtained instructions. 3. The petition has been filed by the parents of certain students of the School in question and had contended that they are stakeholders in the growth of the School. Their grievance is against an order dated 22.04.2025 whereby the incumbent named above has been made the new Principal of the School. It is the contention of the petitioners that the present incumbent - Principal is taking steps for improvement of the School and during his tenure, there has been marked development which is also appreciated by the authorities. It is submitted that his tenure was extended and in this regard, Shri Bhattacharya, the learned counsel has referred to the Terms and Conditions – Defence Service Officers annexed to the petition (Annexure-18). 4. On the other hand, both Shri Roy and Ms. Gayan, the learned counsel for Page No.# 4/5 the respondents has submitted that neither the present incumbent, who is the School In-charge - Principal and substantively holding the post of Vice Principal has been made party nor the incumbent whose transfer has been challenged has been made party in this petition. They have also questioned the locus of the petitioners to maintain the present challenge. 5. Coming to the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the respondents, by referring to the instructions placed on record have submitted that the incumbent, who was presently running the School on In-charge basis was appointed on 30.07.2021 and as per the terms and conditions, the tenure is normally 3 to 4 years which was however extended to 31.08.2025. Vide an order dated 11.04.2025, Colonel Anant Thapan has been posted as the Principal of the School which is followed by a movement order of 20.06.2025. It is submitted that the aforesaid steps are within the exclusive domain of the administration and unless the petitioners can show violation of any statute or mala fide involved, such matters are not to be made subject matter of dispute in a writ proceeding. 6. Shri Bhattacharya, the learned counsel for the petitioners has on the other hand submitted that the primary objective of filing this petition is towards the betterment of the Institution and has also submitted that in spite of the interim directions, there are certain movements which are in violation of the same. 7. The rival submissions has been duly considered. 8. The petition has not been instituted by the incumbent -principal In-charge, who would be the most affected party by the order of transfer. This Court has also noticed that the incumbent, who has been posted presently by the impugned order has also not been made a party in this petition. Page No.# 5/5 9. Be that as it may, without even going to the aspect of locus to maintain the present challenge and giving the benefit of doubt to the petitioners who has expressed concern on the betterment of the school, it is seen that the tenure of the earlier incumbent, who was substantively appointed as Vice Principal had expired in terms of the terms and conditions and was under an extension. 10. The present order of posting a new Principal of the School does not appear to be in any violation of any rules and rather appears to be a step towards bringing stability to the School by having a permanent Principal. This Court has also noticed from the instructions placed on record that active steps have been taken to have a permanent Principal in the school. This Court is of the view that under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no cause of action appears to have been made out by the petitioners. The movement order also, in the opinion of this Court is not in conflict with the interim order. 11. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Interim order stands vacated. 12. The written instructions are made part of the records. JUDGE Comparing Assistant