Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040009442025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/188/2025 Dubok Medo Age: 37 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Chujeng Medo Village Migging PO and PS Tuting Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh and present address Camp Tuting PO and PS Tuting Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 3 Ors Age: 0 Occupation : Address:represented by the Secretary (Health Services) Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 791111 2:The Director of Health Services Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 791110 3:The District Medical Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Yingkiong Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Page No.# 2/5 Naharlagun 791002 4:Perang Alee (Driver) Age: 0 Occupation : Address:C/o District Medical Officer Yingkiong PO and PS Yingkiong Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. ------------ Advocate for : Muk Pertin Senior Advocate Advocate for : Taba Tagum appearing for The State of AP and 3 Ors: Advocate , , appearing for 2,3,4, respectively. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 24.03.2026 Heard Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department, representing respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and Mr. A. Tatak, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 2. The petitioner, who was transferred and is presently posted at CHC Tuting, has challenged the order No. MUS/ESTT-14/2025 dated 08.04.2025 issued by District Medical Officer, Upper Siang District, Yingkiong, whereby he is sought to be transferred from CHC Tuting to CHC Mariyang. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said transfer order has not been issued in the public interest. 3. Mr. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the impugned transfer order dated 08.04.2025, contends that the same has been issued at the Page No.# 3/5 behest of respondent No. 4, who has been posted in place of the petitioner at CHC Tuting from CHC Mariyang. It is reflected in the remarks column of the impugned order, against the name of respondent No. 4, which says that the order in respect of respondent No. 4 was issued at his own request and that he should make the first move. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since the impugned transfer order was issued at the instance of respondent No. 4 and not in the public interest, the same is arbitrary and issued in violation of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India, and therefore deserves to be set aside and quashed. 5. However, at this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already submitted a representation dated 14.04.2025 before the respondent authority for reconsideration of his transfer from CHC Tuting to CHC Mariyang, and the same is still pending disposal. It is therefore prayed that the respondent authority may be directed to dispose of the said representation dated 14.04.2025 submitted by the petitioner, requesting retention of his service at CHC, Tuting on account of domestic hardship in his family. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, have filed affidavits in opposition, contending that both the petitioner and respondent No. 4 have been stationed at their respective places of posting for over six years, against the prescribed tenure of two years. As both have overstayed in their respective stations, the transfer order was issued in the public interest. It is further contended that unless mala fide intention is established, the transfer order is expected not to be interfered with by this Court. 7. In support of his submissions, the learned Standing counsel for the Page No.# 4/5 respondent relied on the following decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: i. Union of India & Ors. v. S. L. Abbas, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357; and ii. Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (1991) Supp (2) SCC 659. 8. Mr. Tatak, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, submits that respondent No. 4 never made any representation nor requested the authority for his transfer from CHC Mariyang to CHC Tuting in place of the petitioner. He further submits that after issuance of the transfer order, respondent No. 4 joined his duty at CHC, Tuting; however, as the impugned transfer order has been suspended by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated on 29.04.2025, he is presently drawing his salary from CHC Mariyang. 9. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The impugned order was issued on 08.04.2025; however, by this Court’s order dated 29.04.2025, the operation of the same has been stayed. As a result, the petitioner is still performing his duties at CHC Tuting. Although respondent No. 4 joined at CHC, Tuting after his transferred, however, due to the stay order, he is presently drawing his salary from CHC Mariyang. 10. It appears that both the petitioner and respondent No. 4 are presently performing their duties at their respective place of posting prior to their transferred. The record reflects that they both have completed their normal tenure and have been serving at their present places of posting for over six years. Although the record shows that the transfer of both the petitioner and respondent No. 4 was a routine transfer upon completion of their tenure, the impugned transfer order does not reflect or indicate that it was issued in the Page No.# 5/5 public interest. Rather, in the remarks column against respondent No. 4, it is mentioned that the transfer was made at his own request. 11. Further, it appears that the representation submitted by the petitioner is still pending disposal before the respondent authority, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, requires expeditious disposal. Be that as it may, now the petitioner is praying for disposal of the representation submitted by him. 12. In light of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, however, without entering into the merit of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authority, more particularly the District Medical Officer (respondent No. 3), to consider and dispose of the representation dated 14.04.2025 submitted by the petitioner, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 13. Till such disposal, the interim order passed by this court on dated 29.04.2025, staying the impugned transfer order dated 08.04.2025, shall continue to remain in force. 14. With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant