Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010011412025 2025:GAU-AS:1338 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/290/2025 TANBIR YUSUF AHMED S/O SALAHUDDIN AHMED RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 20, BISHNU RABHA PATH, JYOTI PRASAD AGARWALLA BYELANE, BELTOLA, GUWAHATI 781028, DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 05, ASSAM 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 05 ASSAM 3:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (A) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 05 ASSAM 4:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (B) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 05 ASSAM Page No.# 2/6 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DARRANG MANGALDOI ASSAM 784125 ASSAM 6:MANASH JYOTI BORAH CIRCLE OFFICER GORESWAR REVENUE CIRCLE GORESWAR PIN- 781366 DIST BAKSA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P J SAIKIA, SR. ADV, MR. B K GOGOI,MR. R K MAHANTA,MR. R B GOHAIN,MS M NIROLA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, MR. J K ROY (R-6),MR. P P DUTTA(R-6),MR. T J MAHANTA(R-6),GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 10.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J Handique, learned standing counsel, Revenue Department, Assam appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2. Also heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. P.P Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No.6. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition assailing an order dated 09.01.2025, passed by the respondent No.2 i.e., Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, by which the petitioner was transferred as Page No.# 3/6 Circle Officer (Attached), Samuguri Revenue Circle, Nagaon from his current place of posting as Circle Officer, Dalgaon Revenue Circle, Darrang. 3. The ground of challenge as urged by Mr. P. J. Saikia, learned senior counsel is that the impugned order of transfer has been issued in violation of transfer policy and guidelines issued by the State Government from time to time, inasmuch as, the petitioner has been transferred only after eight months from the date of joining in his current place of posting. Mr. Saikia referring to an office order dated 28.11.2022 (Annexure-B to the writ petition), argues that the aforesaid office order debars initiation of transfer proposal and posting before completion of two years of tenure in the current posting. Mr. Saikia contends that the impugned transfer is also in violation of such guidelines. 4. Though not pleaded in the writ petition, Mr. Saikia, referring to a determination made by a Coordinate Bench in I.A(Civil) 1294/2023 arising out of WP(C) No.3189/2021 (Assam Land and Revenue Officers Association (ALRSOA) and Anr Vs. State of Assam and Others) contends that the transfer of the petitioner from his regular post of Circle Officer, Dalgaon as the Circle Officer, (Attached) at Samuguri Revenue Circle affect the status of his service. 5. The coordinate bench in ALRSO Association (supra) held that the post of Circle Officer (Attached) does not form a part of the cadre of ALRS as laid down in the Schedule 1 of Assam Land and Revenue Service Rules, 2015 and therefore, there can be hardly any doubt that assigning posting to a member of ALRS, Junior grade as Page No.# 4/6 Circle Officer (Attached) would amount to posting him/her outside cadre and such posting cannot be assigned to a member of ALRS without his/her consent. However, in the considered opinion of this court, such determination will not support the case of the petitioner for the reason that subsequent to the decision rendered in ALRSO Association (supra), Rule 3 of the Rules 2015 and the corresponding Schedule 1 were amended, which came into effect from 22.09.2023. By way of the amendment Circle Officer, Circle Officer (Attached) and any post equivalent to ALRS, Junior Grade were included in the cadre. Therefore, by virtue of such amendment, it cannot be said that the petitioner is being posted outside his cadre. 6. The other ground urged by Mr. Saikia, learned senior counsel, is that while issuing the impugned order, the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Assam was not taken. 7. To deal with such argument, this court has perused the record, which goes to show that a request was received by the Hon’ble Chief Minister from the MLA, Rangia LAC for transfer of Respondent No.6 from Goreswar Revenue Circle to Dalgaon Revenue Circle, Darrang as the said respondent’s was posted in Darrang in Government job. 8. Another request was made by the MLA Gohpur Constituency for transfer and posting of one Namita Bora, ALRS, CO(A) Samuguri Revenue Circle, Nagaon to Circle Officer, Helem Revenue Circle for the reason that during her tenure at Gohpur as CO(A) and Executive Officer, Gohpur Municipal Board, she had done some remarkable work. Accordingly, she may be posted at Helem Revenue Circle for better Page No.# 5/6 work of public services. 9. The Hon’ble Chief Minister on the basis of such recommendation put a note on 09.01.2025 that such prayer may be considered by ensuring adequacy of officer(s) in the respective establishment(s) and order(s) may be issued immediately. 10. On the basis of such note, the transfer order dated 09.01.2025 was issued and finally file was moved and after consideration at different level, finally on 12.01.2025, the Chief Secretary put the same before the Chief Minister and the Chief Minister granted ex-post facto approval on 19.01.2025. Thus, it cannot be said that there was no approval from the Chief Minister. 11. Now coming to the arguments of Mr. Saikia, learned senior counsel that the transfer is vitiated by mala-fide and in-colorable exercise of power, inasmuch as the record itself shows that the transfer of respondent No.6 was issued not for any public interest but for private interest at the behest of the MLA, Rangia constituency. 12. It is by now well settled that a government employee with a transferable position is subject to relocation and does not have the legal right to stay in one location inasmuch as transfer policies and guidelines do not confer any right upon the government servant. 13. It by also equally well settled that a transfer made on the request of an MLA cannot be held to vitiate the transfer, until and unless there is an allegation of any malafide exercise of powers by the respondent authorities in issuing the order. In absence of specific pleading regarding malafide, non-joining of the person against whom such allegations are made, judicial review of such order in exercise of Page No.# 6/6 this court’s power under article 226 of the Constitution of India is not permissible. 14. In the case in hand and in the absence of specific pleading, malafide exercise of power by the concerned MLA nor the MLA is arrayed as a party respondent in the present proceeding. Therefore, in the totality of the matter, this court finds no good ground to exercise its power of judicial review to interfere with the impugned order of transfer dated 09.01.2025. 15. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. 16. Parties to bear their own cost. 17. The records be returned back to Mr. J Handique, learned standing counsel, Revenue Department. JUDGE Comparing Assistant