Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10564 (GAU)

Sanju Gyadi Son of Tame Gyadi v. State of AP

2026-05-19

Kardak Ete

body2026
JUDGMENT & ORDER : KARDAK ETE, J. Heard Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R. Basar, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. G. Tarak, learned Standing Counsel, Rural Works Department for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. 2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the order dated 11.02.2026 issued by the Superintending Engineer (Co-ord), Rural Works Department (RWD), Itanagar, whereby the petitioner is sought to be transferred from the Rural Works Division, Changlang to the establishment of the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Laaying Yangte, Kurung Kumey District. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Department of Rural Works, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, vide order dated 16.02.2017 and was posted at the RWD, Changlang Division under the Executive Engineer. While the petitioner was serving as Junior Engineer under the Executive Engineer, RWD, Changlang Division, the Executive Engineer, RWD, Jairampur Division, Changlang District, vide letter dated 09.02.2026, placed a requisition before the Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Circle, Miao, Changlang District seeking transfer of Junior Engineers to his Division. Pursuant thereto, vide order dated 09.02.2026, the Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Circle, Miao, transferred the petitioner from Rural Works Department, Changlang Division to the establishment of the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Jairampur, with immediate effect. In the said order, it was stipulated that the transfer and posting must be completed within 15 days from the date of issuance of the order. 4. When the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Changlang Division did not release the petitioner to enable him to join at his new place of posting under the Rural Works Department, Jairampur Division, even after lapse of 9 (nine) days from the date of issuance of the transfer order, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 18.02.2026 before the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Changlang Division requesting for his early release from the said establishment to comply with the transfer order dated 09.02.2026. However, while the petitioner was still awaiting release from Rural Works Department, Changlang Division for joining at Rural Works Department, Jairampur Division, the Superintending Engineer (Coordination), Rural Works Department, Itanagar, vide impugned order dated 11.02.2026, transferred the petitioner from Rural Works Department, Changlang Division to the establishment of the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Laaying Yangte, Kurung Kumey District, Arunachal Pradesh. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned transfer and posting order dated 11.02.2026 issued by the Superintending Engineer (Co-ord), Rural Works Department, Itanagar has been issued in a back-dated and arbitrary manner without cancelling, superseding or modifying the earlier subsisting transfer and posting order dated 09.02.2026. It is submitted that pursuant to the earlier order dated 09.02.2026, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 18.02.2026 before the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Changlang Division requesting for his release in order to comply with the said order. However, instead of releasing the petitioner, the respondent authorities issued the impugned subsequent transfer order dated 11.02.2026 transferring the petitioner from Rural Works Department, Changlang Division to the establishment of the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Laaying Yangte, Kurung Kumey District, without assigning any reasons. 6. Mr. Lollen, learned counsel further submits that it is well settled that though transfer orders issued in public interest are not ordinarily interfered with, such orders must be supported by reasons and must not suffer from arbitrariness. In the present case, it is contended that the respondents have kept the earlier order in abeyance and issued a subsequent conflicting order without any justification, in a cryptic manner and without cancelling or superseding the earlier subsisting order, thereby resulting in administrative inconsistency and arbitrariness, which is not sustainable in law. 7. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not been released from Rural Works Department, Changlang Division despite the transfer order dated 09.02.2026 and is therefore unable to assume charge at his new place of posting. It is contended that the petitioner is being prejudiced by the issuance of the subsequent transfer order dated 11.02.2026 while the earlier transfer order dated 09.02.2026 continues to remain in force, thereby creating administrative uncertainty and affecting his service conditions. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the impugned order dated 11.02.2026 be set aside and a direction be issued to the respondent authorities to release the petitioner from Rural Works Department, Changlang Division to enable him to join at Rural Works Department, Jairampur Division in terms of the earlier transfer order dated 09.02.2026. 8. Mr. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the impugned order dated 11.02.2026 be set aside and a direction be issued to the respondent authorities to release the petitioner from Rural Works Department, Changlang Division to enable him to join at Rural Works Department, Jairampur Division in terms of the earlier transfer order dated 09.02.2026. 8. Mr. G. Tarak, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Rural Works Department, submits that the petitioner has himself admitted that he has served as Junior Engineer in Rural Works Department, Changlang Division for about nine years and has not been released in pursuance of the transfer order dated 09.02.2026 issued by the competent authority. It is submitted that the Superintending Engineer (Co-ordination), RWD, Itanagar is the competent authority under the applicable rules followed by the Department to issue transfer and posting orders of Junior Engineers from one Division to another and therefore there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 11.02.2026. 9. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that the transfer order dated 09.02.2026 was issued without prior consultation with the Superintending Engineer (Co-ordination), RWD, Itanagar and was confined within one circle, whereas the subsequent transfer order dated 11.02.2026 has been issued in exercise of proper administrative authority involving inter-circle transfer from Changlang Division under Miao Civil Circle to Laaying Yangte Division under Yachuli Civil Circle. It is therefore submitted that the impugned action is in accordance with the rules, based on administrative exigency and does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness. 10. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 11. The petitioner was initially transferred vide order dated 09.02.2026 from Rural Works Division, Changlang to Rural Works Division, Jairampur. Subsequently, the impugned order dated 11.02.2026 was issued transferring the petitioner from Rural Works Division, Changlang to Laaying Yangte Division, Kurung Kumey District. The records do not indicate that the earlier transfer order dated 09.02.2026 was formally cancelled, superseded or modified in accordance with procedure before issuance of the subsequent order. Both the orders, therefore, appear to have been allowed to operate simultaneously. 12. The records do not indicate that the earlier transfer order dated 09.02.2026 was formally cancelled, superseded or modified in accordance with procedure before issuance of the subsequent order. Both the orders, therefore, appear to have been allowed to operate simultaneously. 12. A perusal of the impugned order dated 11.02.2026 shows that the petitioner has been transferred from Rural Works Division, Changlang and posted in the same capacity under the establishment of Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Laaying Yangte, Kurung Kumey District, in the interest of public service, with immediate effect. The order also provides that no representation will be entertained and that the movement shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of issuance. The order, however, does not refer to the earlier transfer order dated 09.02.2026 or indicate the manner in which the same is to be given effect to or dealt with. 13. While it is true that transfer of an employee is an incidence of service, and that the authority is the best judge to decide whom to transfer and where, and therefore Courts are normally loath to interfere with orders of transfer, yet when arbitrariness and illegality are clearly manifest, Courts cannot shut their eyes. 14. In the case of Zakir Hussain v. State of Assam, reported in 2001 (3) GLT 67 , this Court has held that even an order of modification, cancellation or supersession of a transfer order made in public interest must be supported by cogent reasons reflecting due application of mind. It has further been held that a cryptic or unreasoned interference with an earlier subsisting transfer order cannot be sustained in law, as transfer orders are ordinarily issued upon consideration of administrative exigency and public interest, and any departure therefrom must be justified by clear and recorded reasons. In absence of such reasons, the action would be liable to be interfered with on the ground of arbitrariness in the exercise of administrative power. 15. Similarly, in the case of Dubom Bagra v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors., reported in 2013 (5) GLT 487 , it was observed that transfer and posting must be made strictly in public interest and administrative exigency, with transparency and that personal liking or disliking cannot govern such decisions. 15. Similarly, in the case of Dubom Bagra v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors., reported in 2013 (5) GLT 487 , it was observed that transfer and posting must be made strictly in public interest and administrative exigency, with transparency and that personal liking or disliking cannot govern such decisions. It was further held that the subsequent modification of the earlier transfer was not supported by any material showing public interest or proper consideration and was not sustainable, and accordingly the impugned action was set aside. 16. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, it is seen that the impugned order dated 11.02.2026 has been issued without making any reference to the earlier order dated 09.02.2026, though both the orders concern the transfer and posting of the petitioner from the same establishment. The records placed before this Court do not disclose any recorded reasons or administrative justification for issuance of the subsequent order within such a short span of time. There is also nothing to indicate that the earlier order dated 09.02.2026 was either cancelled, superseded or modified in accordance with procedure before issuance of the impugned order. As a result, both the orders appear to have been allowed to operate simultaneously, thereby giving rise to an uncertain and inconsistent position regarding the actual place of posting of the petitioner. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and having regard to the settled legal position, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 11.02.2026 issued by the Superintending Engineer (Co-ord), Rural Works Department, Itanagar, cannot be sustained and is accordingly hereby set aside. 18. However, it is made clear that it shall be open to the respondent authorities to pass a fresh transfer order in accordance with law, taking into account administrative exigency, by assigning reasons and following due procedure. 19. The writ petition stands disposed of, in terms above.