Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010234092025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6028/2025 RAMEN MEDHI S/O- LT DWIJEN CH MEDHI R/O GOPAL NAGAR, NOONMATI, PO NOONMATI, PS NOONMATI, DISTRICT- KAMRUP METRO ASSAM PIN- 781020 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (ELEMENTARY), DISPUR, ASSAM-781006 2:THE SAMAGRA SHIKSHA AXOM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI -19 ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MISSION DIRECTOR 3:THE MISSION DIRECTOR TO THE SAMAGRA SHIKSHA AXOM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI -19 ASSAM 4:ANUPAM SARMA DOP (TT AND P) SSA DHUBRI PM DUTTA ROAD WARD NO- 2 PO DHUBRI ASSAM-78330 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S BORTHAKUR, P KHATANIAR Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, MR. K KALITA(R-4),MR. I H SAIKIA (R-4),SC, SSA Page No.# 2/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 26.03.2026 Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing counsel Samagra Siksha, Assam and Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned counsel for respondent No.4. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed under the District Primary Education Program (DPEP) in the year 1998 in Barpeta District, and thereafter he was transferred in the year 2001 to Sonitpur District as a District Programme Officer in Early Child Education (ECE) and Inclusive Education (IE) Department, under the District Primary Education Program (DPEP). 3. The petitioner further states that on 3rd of July 2003, the District Primary Education Program (DPEP) was winded up by the Government and the petitioner along with others were absorbed in Sarba Siksha Abhijan Mission, which is later on changed to Samagra Shiksha Yojana, and was posted at Sonitpur. The petitioner thereafter was transferred and posted to District Mission Office SSA, Morigaon, by order dated 20th June 2006. Thereafter, again on 5th of August 2010, the petitioner was engaged as District Programme Officer (Teachers Training) in the vacant post of SSA, Dhemaji. The petitioner was transferred from Dhemaji to Sonitpur in the year 2016. And thereafter, by order dated 23/9/2024, the petitioner was again transferred from Sonitpur to Goalpara, whereas by the same order dated 23/9/2024, respondent No. 4 was transferred from Goalpara to Dhubri. It be stated here that order dated Page No.# 3/7 23/09/2024 was not in respect of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 only, but in respect of many employees who are working under the Samagra Shiksha, Axom. Till then, the petitioner was not aggrieved by the transfer and posting given to him at various places over the said period of time. However, on 16/10/2025, that is, after a span of 1 year, 1 month, the petitioner was again transferred and posted at Samagra Shiksha, Axom, Dhubri District and Respondent No. 4 was transferred and posted at Samagra Shiksha, Axom, Goalpara District. It is this order that the petitioner is aggrieved with. 4. It is seen that the petitioner was transferred from Goalpara to Dhubri District by the said order, and the respondent No. 4 was transferred from Dhubri to Goalpara District. The petitioner, aggrieved by the said transfer order, made representation before the Mission Director, Samagra Shiksha Axom, stating inter alia that it has been only 1 year 11 days of his working in Goalpara district that he was transferred from Goalpara District to Dhubri District, and further that he was left with only 18 months of service and that during this end of his service career, he was again transferred to a place which is far off from his hometown of Kamrup. 5. Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that, the petitioner was transferred from Goalpara to Dhubri district before completing even 2 years of service in Goalpara, and that he is at the verge of retirement, and that he was transferred to such far-off places. And he submits that the said transfer order was not in public interest, neither in exigencies of service, which is required in case of transfer of any employee. Mr. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the interlocutory application, filed by respondent No. 4, in which at paragraph 3, Respondent No. 4 had stated that when he was transferred from Goalpara, his father was 90 years of age and was Page No.# 4/7 bedridden as he had suffered from a brain stroke on 25.08.2022. Respondent No. 4 had made an representation before the respondent authorities on 10/11/2024 to transfer him to Goalpara, taking into account the health condition of his father. 6. He further stated that although his father expired on 02/05/2025, he had met with an accident and suffered a head injury with fracture, and that his wife was also suffering from some disease, and that his son was also appearing for some examination. Considering his grievances, respondent No. 4 was transferred from Dhubri to Goalpara on medical and humanitarian reasons. He as such submits that there is no illegality in the transfer order dated 16/10/2025. Respondent No. 4 also stated that he has no grievance against the petitioner and that the petitioner can also make a representation to the authorities to transfer him to suitable places. 7. By referring to the said contention of respondent No. 4 in the said interlocutory application, Mr. Borthakur, learned counsel submits that the said transfer order dated 16/10/2025 was not in public interest. As such, the learned counsel prays that the said order may be interfered with and the petitioner may be allowed to remain in Goalpara district in the last days of his service career. 8. Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing counsel Samagra Siksha, Axom, by relying upon his affidavit, have stated that the services under the Samagra Siksha, Axom is in the nature of contractual service and that the employees has to join their services at the place of posting and should follow the transfer orders. He submits that the respondent No.4 had submitted representations showing the health condition of his father and his family members and other humanitarian reasons, and as such, he was transferred from Dhubri to Goalpara. Further in view of the fact, somebody has to go and join at Samagra Siksha, Axom, Page No.# 5/7 Dhubri, the petitioner was sent, and there was no illegality in the order, neither there was any biasness on the part of the authorities. 9. He further submits that if the petitioner is aggrieved with the transfer, he can first go and join his place of posting and then make representation to the authorities who would consider the same as it is considered in other cases. He also submits that under the law it is required that the employee has to go and join his place of posting and that the same principles does not apply to the employees working under the Samagra Siksha Axom, like in cases of government servants. 10. Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, has reiterated the statements made in the interlocutory application, by stating inter-alia that on humanitarian and medical reasons, he was transferred from Dhubri to Goalpara. He has placed the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.C Saxena Vs Union of India and Others, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 583, by which the Apex Court has held that Government servant cannot disobey a transfer order by not reporting at the place of posting and then go to the court to ventilate his grievances. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. It is noticed that the petitioner is working as a District Program Officer (Teachers Training) under the scheme of Samagra Siksha Axom, and he has been working in the said capacity since 2006 after he was absorbed under the said scheme. During his service tenure, he was transferred to various places and he has joined the said place of posting without any objection. But when he was transferred to Dhubri District by order dated 16/10/2025, by bringing respondent No. 4 from Dhubri District to Goalpara District, he felt aggrieved and after filing the representation, came before this Court by filing Page No.# 6/7 the instant writ petition. It is no res-integra that an employee/ government servant can challenge the transfer order on grounds of mala-fide in case of the authorities concerned or on some other genuine grounds. The employee or the government servant has to join the place of posting on being transferred by authorities when the said transfer order is due to exigencies of service. It is noticed that respondent No. 4 had represented before the authorities concerned about his problems/issues faced by him if he is made to stay in Dhubri district and the authorities concerned on finding the reasons genuine had transferred him from Dhubri to Goalpara district. Further, the transfer is an incidence of service which cannot be disobeyed by an employee. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that an employee, when transferred, has to first report for work where he is transferred, and thereafter make a representation as to what may be his personal problems. And the authorities are duty-bound to consider the same. In the instant case, the respondent authorities had taken into account the personal problems of respondent No. 4, and while bringing respondent No. 4 to Goalpara District, one of the employees has to be transferred to Dhubri district from where respondent No. 4 was transferred. And if it is not the petitioner, it has to be someone else. As such, no illegality is seen in the order dated 16/10/2025. 12. It is accordingly directed that the petitioner should first go and report to the place of posting at Dhubri district, and if required he may file a representation to the authorities showing his personal problems, which would be considered by the authorities. It is also directed that on such representation being filed, the authorities would consider the same within a short period of time, since the petitioner has only few years/months left in his service. 13. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed and disposed of. Page No.# 7/7 14. The interim orders, if any, stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant