Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040016912025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/488/2025 Yomkar Sora Son of Shri Liyom Sora, presently serving as Post Graduate Teacher (PGT), Political Science, Govt Nehru Memorial Hr Sec School, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 2 Ors represented by the Commissioner, Education, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Deputy Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Education Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Director of Secondary Education Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar Advocate for the Petitioner : Marto Kato, Tony Meto,Liya Keche,Kamin Teri,Yasmin Gao,Mepe Ete,Nyali Sora Advocate for the Respondent : Taba Tagum, SC (Education) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Page No.# 2/6 Date : 26-09-2025 Heard Mr. M. Kato, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department for the respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the order dated 20.07.2025, issued by the Commissioner (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh whereby, as many as 203 teachers (PGT/TGT/PRT/PET) have been transferred to different schools of the State including the petitioner, who has been transferred from NM GHSS, Aalo to GHSS, Wakka, Longding District. 3. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is that he is serving as TGT since his appointment in the year 2014 in the Department of Education, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. Initially, he was posted to Government Higher Secondary School, Palin, Kra Daadi District. Thereafter, he was posted to Government Nehru Memorial Higher Secondary School, Aalo, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh in February’ 2019 and continued to serve till date. Then, the impugned order dated 20.07.2025 has been issued transferring the petitioner from NM GHSS, Aalo to GHSS, Wakka, Longding District. 4. Mr. M. Kato, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although, the impugned transfer order dated 20.07.2025, is a common transfer order, the petitioner has twin minor children to look after beside his wife. Since, the spouse of the petitioner, who is also working in the same Page No.# 3/6 Department as a teacher is posted at same place, the petitioner is entitled to a joint posting as per the policy of the State. Therefore, he submits that respondent authorities are required to consider the well-being of the petitioner being an employer. 5. Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department, submits that the impugned order is a common transfer and posting order, by which, as many as 203 teachers have been transferred at various schools to rationalise the system as well as for the well being of the students community. The petitioner does not have any indefeasible right to continue in the same place of posting. However, he submits that at best the respondent authorities may be directed to consider and dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner. 6. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 7. Admittedly, the impugned order of transfer and posting of the teachers (PGT/TGT/PRT/PET) under the Director of Secondary Education and Director of Elementary Education had been effected as a part of rationalisation of transfer and posting of teachers in the Education Department, whereby, as many as 203 teachers including the petitioner, have been transferred and posted in various schools. 8. On careful consideration of the transfer and posting of the teachers (PGT/TGT/PRT/PET), it is seen that the impugned order dated 20.07.2025 was issued to rationalise the transfer and posting in the Education Page No.# 4/6 Department, which this Court finds no infirmity as the future and career of the students of different schools in different Districts of the State needs to be considered and taken care of. Unless the transfer and posting of the teachers are rationalised, the well being of the students in various school of the State would suffer and the whole educational system will take a backseat. 9. The mere grounds that the petitioner’s spouse is posted at Aalo, and having children to look after, cannot by itself, entitle the petitioner to be retained at a particular place of posting. Transfers and postings are to be regulated in accordance with the administrative exigency and public interest. 10. It is well settled principle of law that the transfer is an incident of service and who should be posted where and when is in the domain of the administrative authorities. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be clearly arbitrary or is vitiated by mala fide or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court should not ordinarily interfere with it. A challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the Courts, as though they are Appellate Authorities over such transfer orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. 11. In the case of Somesh Tiwari vs. the Union of India, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 592, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that an order of transfer is an administrative order. Transfer, which is ordinarily an incident of service should not be interfered with, save in cases where,inter alia, Page No.# 5/6 mala fide on the part of the authority is proved. 12. In view of the settled position of law and the observation by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the transfer is a prerogative of the authorities concerned and should not normally be interfered with, except when the transfer order is shown to be vitiated by mala fides or in violation of any statutory provisions or having been passed by an authority, not competent to pass such an order. In the present case, the petitioner is not able to establish any violation of statutory provisions, or mala fides or discrimination in his transfer. The transfer order is a common transfer order, whereby, as many as 203 teacher (PGT/TGT/PRT/PET) have been transferred in the process of rationalisation of the transfer and posting of teachers of the Education Department, which is an administrative exigency and public interest. Thus, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned transfer order dated 20.07.2025. 13. Having considered above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned transfer order dated 20.07.2025 in view of the fact that the transfer and posting order has been issued to rationalise the transfer and posting of the teachers in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. However, since, the petitioner has filed a representation on 25.07.2025 before the Commissioner (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh for retention at the present place of posting with detail grounds thereof and also considering that out of 203 teachers, who have been transferred vide impugned order dated 20.07.2025, 45 (forty-five) teachers appears to have been considered by the Department upon submission of their representations, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with Page No.# 6/6 a direction to the Commissioner (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh to consider and dispose of the representation dated 25.07.2025 submitted by the petitioner within a period of 15(fifteen) days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. It is directed accordingly. 14. Writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant