Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040016792025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/484/2025 Smti Vidita Mishra Wife of Vikash Bhardwaj, resident of P Sector, Itanagar, PO and PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 4 Ors. represented by the Secretary, Department of Education, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Civil Secretariat, Itanagar. 2:The Commissioner Education Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Education Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat Itanagar. 3:The Director of Secondary Education Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 4:The State Project Director Age: 0 Occupation : Samagra Shiksha (ISSE) Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 5:The Deputy Secretary (Education) Age: 0 Page No.# 2/6 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Jumgam Jini, Bamang Tatung,Risso Aking,Gyamar Jeevan,Tao Tarin,Migo Laye,Taying Nega Advocate for the Respondent : Taba Tagum, SC (Education) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 25-09-2025 Heard Mr. J. Jini, 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 O/o ISSE, Samagra Shiksha, Itanagar to GHSS, Thrizino, West Kameng District. 3. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is that she has rendered more than 18 (eighteen) years of service since her appointment in the year 2007 as Senior Teacher (English) in the Department of Education, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner claims that since her appointment in the year 2007, she was posted at Government Higher Secondary School, Kaying, West Siang District. Thereafter, in 2010, she was transferred to Capital Complex, Itanagar, where she was attached to the Office of the State Project Director, Samagra Page No.# 3/6 Shiksha/ISSE, Itanagar and has served at various government schools and institutions within the Capital Complex, Itanagar. The impugned order dated 20.07.2025 has been issued transferring the petitioner from O/o ISSE, Samagra Shiksha, Itanagar to GHSS, Thrizino, West Kameng District. 4. Mr. J. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a single mother solely responsible for the upbringing of her two minor daughters. Her elder daughter is presently studying in Class XII and is preparing for the Board Examination, while her younger daughter is a student of Class-IX. Therefore, in such a crucial academic year of her elder daughter, the respondent authorities are required to consider the well-being of the petitioner being an employer. That apart, the spouse of the petitioner has been living separately in Jorhat, Assam since 2020 and provides no support. He further submits that the petitioner’s 75 years old father, a severe cardiac patient, is dependent on the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that respondents are incumbent upon to consider the hardship faced by the petitioner, and to consider her request on humanitarian grounds, as well as the right accrued from the policy of the State. 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 having been served in and around Itanagar for 15 (fifteen) years, she would not have any indefeasible right to continue in the same place of posting. He submits that, at best, the respondent authorities may be directed to consider and dispose of the representation submitted 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 Page No.# 4/6 (PGT/TGT/PRT/PET) under the Director of Secondary Education and Director of Elementary Education has been effected, whereby, as many as 203 teachers including the petitioner, have been transferred and posted in various schools. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was released on 15.09.2025. 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 process of the Education Department, which this Court finds no infirmity as the career and future 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 schools of the State would suffer and the whole educational system will take a backseat. 9. The petitioner appears to have served in and around the State Capital i.e. Itanagar for 15 (fifteen) years. Therefore, re-consideration of her transfer, on the ground of children’s education and dependents critical health, in my view, may not be justified. 10. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a single mother responsible for her two minor children, her elder daughter being in the crucial academic year, and that her father is ailing, the petitioner’s request to be retained at her current posting on humanitarian ground cannot, by itself, entitle the petitioner to be retained at the same place of posting. Transfers and postings are to be regulated in accordance with administrative exigencies and public interest. 11. 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 Page No.# 5/6 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. 12. 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, mala fide on the part of the authority is proved. 13. 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 teachers (PGT/TGT/PRT/PET) have been transferred in the process of rationalisation of the transfer and posting 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. 14. Having considered above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned transfer order dated 20.07.2025 and the consequential release order of the petitioner in view of the fact that the impugned transfer order has been issued in order to rationalise the transfer and posting of the teachers in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. However, since, the petitioner has filed a representation on 24.07.2025 before the Commissioner (Education), Page No.# 6/6 Government of Arunachal Pradesh for retention at the present place of posting with detail grounds thereof and also considering that the 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 a direction to the Commissioner (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh to consider and dispose of the representation dated 24.07.2025 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. 15. Writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant