JUDGMENT : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. In this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed an Order bearing no. SWRD/E-09/2013/Pt-II dated 10.11.2025 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Water Resources Department [WRD]. It is stated that the impugned Order is in partial modification of an earlier order of even number dated 29.10.2025. By the impugned Order, the petitioner, an Executive Engineer in the Water Resources Department [WRD], Government of Arunachal Pradesh, has been transferred and posted from Seppa WRD Division to Daporijo WRD Circle vice one Sri Hanu Techi Tara, Executive Engineer transferred. In the impugned Order, it is stated that the petitioner was under an order of posting at Yingkiong WRD Division. By the same impugned Order, the respondent no. 4, also an Executive Engineer, who was also under an order of posting to Daporijo WRD Circle, has been shown to be retained at Yingkiong WRD Division. 2. The petitioner is in service in the rank and post of regular Executive Engineer under the Water Resources Department [WRD], Government of Arunachal Pradesh. Pursuant to recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer and posted at Seppa WRD by an Order dated 26.11.2014. The respondent no. 4 is in the substantive post of Assistant Engineer and he was appointed as Executive Engineer on functional basis in his own pay level and grade pay of Assistant Engineer by an Order dated 17.06.2020. 3. By an Order dated 11.07.2023, a number of Executive Engineers were transferred and posted at different places, as indicated therein, in the interest of public service. The petitioner who was then serving as Executive Engineer at Pasighat Division, was transferred to the Office of Superintending Engineer Coord, WRD, Itanagar as Executive Engineer [P&D]. By the same Order, the respondent no. 4 was transferred from Kolorian Division, WRD to Yingkiong Division, WRD as Executive Engineer. 4. By a subsequent Order dated 05.08.2024, a number of Executive Engineers were again transferred and posted at different places, as mentioned therein, in the interest of public service. The petitioner was transferred from the Office of the Superintending Engineer, Coord, Itanagar to Seppa WRD Division as Executive Engineer. 4. By a subsequent Order dated 05.08.2024, a number of Executive Engineers were again transferred and posted at different places, as mentioned therein, in the interest of public service. The petitioner was transferred from the Office of the Superintending Engineer, Coord, Itanagar to Seppa WRD Division as Executive Engineer. While the petitioner was serving as Executive Engineer at Seppa Division for about one year and two months after the Order dated 08.05.2024, the petitioner was again transferred and posted as Executive Engineer at Yingkiong Division, WRD by an Order dated 29.10.2025 in the interest of public service. By the Order dated 29.10.2025, the respondent no. 4 was transferred from Yingkiong Division, WRD to Daporijo Circle, WRD as Executive Engineer [P&D]. 5. I have heard Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3; Mr. P. Taffo, learned senior counsel for the respondent nos. 4 & 5; and Mr. A. Tatak, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6. 6. Mr. Pertin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that during the period from 11.07.2023 to 29.10.2025, the petitioner was transferred on three occasions. In obeisance to the Order of transfer dated 29.10.2025, the petitioner joined in the post of Executive Engineer, Yingkiong Division, WRD in strict observance of all the procedures as laid down in an Office Memorandum dated 13.02.2007. He has pointed out that on 29.10.2025, the petitioner did not even complete a period of three months at his previous place of posting as Executive Engineer, Basar Division, WRD, which is much less than the normal tenure of two years as provided in the Transfer Policy Guidelines framed by a Circular dated 02.06.1998 and partially amended subsequently by an Order dated 19.12.2008. On the other hand, the respondent no. 3 had completed more than two years in the Yingkiong Division, WRD since 11.07.2023. As per the norms and procedure prescribed by the Office Memorandum dated 13.02.2007, the petitioner started working as the Executive Engineer, Yingkiong Division, WRD on and from 07.11.2025. Yet, in the impugned Order dated 10.11.2025, the petitioner was shown to be under an order of posting to Yingkiong Division, WRD and the respondent no. 4 was shown to be in the post of Executive Engineer, Yingkiong Division, WRD and was under an order of posting to Daporijo Circle, WRD. Yet, in the impugned Order dated 10.11.2025, the petitioner was shown to be under an order of posting to Yingkiong Division, WRD and the respondent no. 4 was shown to be in the post of Executive Engineer, Yingkiong Division, WRD and was under an order of posting to Daporijo Circle, WRD. He has further submitted that from the impugned Order which was shown to be passed in partial modification of the Order dated 29.10.2025, it does not emerge that the impugned Order was passed in the interest of public service’ as the said words are missing therein. The impugned Order has been passed without any application of mind by the respondent authorities in the WRD and merely at the behest of two Members of Legislative Assembly [MLAs] who purportedly sought retention of the respondent no. 4 at Yingkiong Division, WRD on the basis of Representations from local people. Mr. Pertin, by referring to the contents of the Representations, has submitted that the respondent no. 4 was sought to be retained on the ground that he was in charge of number of works of importance in the said Division and his presence would be necessary to carry out those works. But, a mere look at the works would go to show that the works are of normal nature and they do not need a high level of expertise and a person possessing high skills for execution. The petitioner is very well capable of executing all those works. He has contended that by 10.11.2025, the petitioner was already working as Executive Engineer, Yingkiong Division, WRD after taking over charge of the said post unilaterally on 07.11.2025 in strict adherence to the procedure laid down by the State Government. He has, thus, submitted that though the impugned Order is not in violation of any statutory provision or may not be mala fide but the same is against the norms professed by the State respondents. Being aware of the fact that transfer is an incident of service, the petitioner has followed the transfer orders, as and when passed, without raising any question. But in the case in hand, the petitioner is constrained to approach the Court as the State respondents has passed the impugned Order in total violation of the law merely to accommodate the respondent no. 4 and after the earlier Order dated 29.10.2025 was duly carried out. 7. Mr. But in the case in hand, the petitioner is constrained to approach the Court as the State respondents has passed the impugned Order in total violation of the law merely to accommodate the respondent no. 4 and after the earlier Order dated 29.10.2025 was duly carried out. 7. Mr. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh appearing for the State respondents has supported the Order dated 10.11.2025. It is his submission that at the time of passing the impugned Order dated 10.11.2025, both the Officers were under orders of posting. It is his further submission that till 10.11.2025, the previous Order of transfer dated 29.10.2025 was not acted upon and therefore, it was open for the employer to issue the impugned Order on 10.11.2025, which was in partial modification of the Order dated 29.10.2025. He has submitted that as the impugned Order was issued in partial modification of the previous Order dated 29.10.2025, there was no necessity to express specifically that the order was passed ‘in the interest of public service’. He has submitted that there is no bar to make transfer order on the basis of Representations received from public representatives like an MLA and in the case in hand, after the Order dated 29.10.2025, two Representations were received from two local MLAs making request for retention of the respondent no. 4 as the Executive Engineer, Yingkiong Division, WRD in order to enable him to supervise the ongoing public works in the same Division despite the fact that he was posted in the Yingkiong Division, WRD for more than three years. He has submitted that since the impugned Order is neither in violation of any statutory rules nor there is an allegation of mala fide, the same does not require any interference. 8. Mr. Taffo, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 has submitted in similar lines as the learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh. He has submitted that the Transfer Policy framed by the State Government are merely Guidelines and they may be followed to the extent possible. But, the Guidelines are not enforceable in the writ jurisdiction. If the respondent no. 4 has been sought to be retained at a particular place of posting beyond the normal tenure of two years by the employer by the impugned Order, no interference can be made. But, the Guidelines are not enforceable in the writ jurisdiction. If the respondent no. 4 has been sought to be retained at a particular place of posting beyond the normal tenure of two years by the employer by the impugned Order, no interference can be made. Further, it is the employer who has the power and authority to make transfers in administrative exigency. A Government employee has to comply with an order of transfer and it is not open to question an order of transfer only because the order is passed before expiry of the normal tenure of two years at a particular place. 9. Both Mr. Taffo and Mr. Tatak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 and the respondent no. 6 respectively have submitted that even if any allegation is made by a Government employee under an order of transfer that he has been transferred on the recommendation of a public representative like an MLA that by itself would not vitiate the transfer order. It all depends upon on the facts and circumstances of the individual case. They have submitted, in unison, that in the present case, the respondent no. 5 and the respondent no. 6 as the MLAs of the local area had received Representations from the local public wherein it was mentioned that presence of the respondent no. 4 would be necessary to supervise and monitor the ongoing public works. They have referred to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mohd. Masood Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and others, [2007] 8 SCC 150, and Pubi Lombi vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and others, [2024] 12 SCC 292, in support of their submissions. 10. I have given consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through materials brought on record by the pleadings of the parties. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the parties in support of their contentions are perused. 11. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 4 who is in the substantive post of Assistant Engineer, was allowed to serve in the post of Executive Engineer on functional basis only from 17.06.2020. The respondent no. 4 was transferred to and posted at Yingkiong Division, WRD as Executive Engineer by the Order dated 11.07.2023. 11. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 4 who is in the substantive post of Assistant Engineer, was allowed to serve in the post of Executive Engineer on functional basis only from 17.06.2020. The respondent no. 4 was transferred to and posted at Yingkiong Division, WRD as Executive Engineer by the Order dated 11.07.2023. When his order of transfer and posting to Daporijo Circle, WRD was passed on 29.10.2025, the respondent no. 4 had already spent more than two years at Yingkiong Division of the WRD. It was made specific in the Order dated 29.10.2025 that the transfer and posting of the three Executive Engineers effected thereby were in the interest of public service. By the Order dated 29.10.2025, the petitioner was transferred from Seppa Division, WRD to Yingkiong Division, WRD vice the respondent no. 4. 12. By a Circular dated 02.06.1998, the State Government issued Guidelines on the transfer and posting of all categories of officers and staffs in Arunachal Pradesh upon approval by the Governor, in supersession of all previous notifications / circulars, etc. issued on the subject. As per the said transfer policy Guidelines, all postings including those in the Secretariat, in the offices of the Heads of Departments and in the districts should be normally for a period of three years for the sake of continuity. The exceptions can be transfers on promotion, for filling up a crucial vacancy based on specialization, on compassionate and health ground with the approval of the competent authority. It was specified that its proposal for transfer must clearly state on the file that it satisfied all the conditions mentioned in the transfer policy Guidelines. By an Order dated 19.12.2008, the normal tenure was modified from three years to two years in the transfer policy Guidelines. Therefore, the transfer and posting of the respondent no. 4 by the Order dated 29.10.2025 from Yingkiong Division, WRD to Daporijo Circle, WRD was in conformity with the transfer policy Guidelines framed by the State Government. 13. It is settled law that a transfer is an incidence of service and is a part of the service conditions of a Government employee. An order of transfer is made in exigency of service and is an administrative decision. 13. It is settled law that a transfer is an incidence of service and is a part of the service conditions of a Government employee. An order of transfer is made in exigency of service and is an administrative decision. The power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not to be exercised in a matter where no injustice has been caused. It has emerged as a settled proposition that an order of transfer is not to be interfered in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 unless it is found that the order is mala fide, or that the order is in violation of any statutory provision, or that the authority who has issued the order is not competent to pass the order, or in infraction of any professed norms. It is also settled that any policy guidelines on the transfer and posting issued by the employer does not confer any enforceable right upon an employee if such policy guidelines do not have any statutory force. Therefore, it cannot be said that the policy guidelines on the transfer and posting, as issued by the Circular dated 02.06.1998 and the Order dated 19.12.2008, have created any enforceable right upon a Government employee to seek enforcement of such policy guidelines under Article 226 of the Constitution even if he has been transferred before completing the normal two years tenure or he has served at one place beyond the normal tenure of two years. 14. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that after the Order dated 29.10.2025, there were correspondences from two elected representatives, who sought retention of the respondent no. 4 at Yingkiong Division, WRD. Recommending for retention of the respondent no. 4 at Yingkiong Division, the Member of Legislative Assembly [MLA], 34 th Tuting – Yingkiong Legislative Assembly Constituency [LAC] [the respondent no. 5] wrote to the Minister, WRD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh vide U.O. Note dated 31.10.2025. The MLA, 40 no. Geku-Mariyang LAC [the respondent no. 6] also wrote to the Minister, WRD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh vide U.O. Note dated 01.11.2025 recommending retention of the respondent no. 4, who had already been transferred and posted to Daporijo Circle, WRD vide Order dated 29.10.2025, as Executive Engineer, Yingkiong Division, WRD. It was inter alia stated that the respondent no. 4 was personally known to him for long. 15. 4, who had already been transferred and posted to Daporijo Circle, WRD vide Order dated 29.10.2025, as Executive Engineer, Yingkiong Division, WRD. It was inter alia stated that the respondent no. 4 was personally known to him for long. 15. The proposal for retention of the respondent no. 4, after receipt of recommendations from two MLAs, was processed on and from 07.11.2025 after the Minister, WRD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh made an endorsement on the U.O. Notes to process. While processing the proposal, the authorities were in clear knowledge that pursuant to the Order dated 29.10.2025, the petitioner had already handed over the charge of Executive Engineer, Seppa Division, WRD on 04.11.2025 vide a Certificate of Transfer of Charges which stood uploaded in the concerned portal. Subsequently, the Superintending Engineer, Jamiri Circle, WRD released the petitioner from Seppa Division, WRD on 06.11.2025 enabling the petitioner to join his new place of posting vide an Order no. WRCJ/ESTT/PF-84/2024-25/296-98 dated 06.11.2025. The authorities were also in clear knowledge that transfer and posting of the petitioner from Seppa Division, WRD was effected before completion of the normal tenure of two years. The authorities in the WRD processed the proposal after receipt of the two U.O. Notes from the MLAs of the area seeking retention of the respondent no. 4 at Yingkiong Division, WRD after the Order dated 29.10.2025. 16. Stating that transfer and posting of officers in the prerogative of the Government to be exercised in the exigency of public service and departmental requirement, a Note was placed on 07.11.2025 before the higher authorities for partial modification of the Order dated 29.10.2025. It transpires that the proposal for retention of the respondent no. 4 received approval from the Secretary, WRD; the Minister, WRD; and the Chief Minister on 08.11.2025. Thereafter, the impugned Order dated 10.11.2025 came to be issued. 17. In the case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad [supra], a contention was raised that the transfer of the appellant was made at the instance of an MLA. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined that even if the allegation of the appellant is correct that he was transferred on the recommendation of an MLA, that by itself would not vitiate the transfer order. Masood Ahmad [supra], a contention was raised that the transfer of the appellant was made at the instance of an MLA. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined that even if the allegation of the appellant is correct that he was transferred on the recommendation of an MLA, that by itself would not vitiate the transfer order. It is the duty of the representatives of the people in the Legislature to express the grievances of the people and if there is any complaint against an official the State Government is certainly within its jurisdiction to transfer such an employee. There can be no hard-and-fast rule that every transfer at the instance of an MP or MLA would be vitiated. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of an individual case. 18. The stands taken by the respondent no. 5 and the respondent no. 6 in their respective affidavits can be looked at first. The respondent no. 5 has stated that as a public representative of the area, he received a Representation from the local public on 30.10.2025 requesting retention of the respondent no. 4 at Yingkiong Division, WRD. It was highlighted in the Representation that the respondent no. 4 was instrumental in timely planning, execution and monitoring of several key irrigation and flood protection works and other development projects in the area and his change would bring adverse impact on public interest. On receipt of the Representation, the respondent no. 5 stated to have placed the U.O. Note dated 31.10.2025. It is further stated that there was no personal and political interest in retention of the respondent no. 4. In his affidavit-in-opposition, the respondent no. 6 has stated that he received a Representation from the local public on 31.10.2025 requesting retention of the respondent no. 4 at Yingkiong. Accordingly, considering the grievances expressed in the said Representation, he as a public representative of the area forwarded the U.O. Note dated 01.11.2025 to the Minister, WRD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh requesting for retention of the respondent no. 4 at Yingkiong as the local public had highlighted that the respondent no. 4 was supervising and implementing several public utility projects of the Water Resources Department at that time. In the U.O. Note dated 01.11.2025, the respondent no. 6 mentioned that the respondent no. 4 was personally known to him for long. 19. 4 at Yingkiong as the local public had highlighted that the respondent no. 4 was supervising and implementing several public utility projects of the Water Resources Department at that time. In the U.O. Note dated 01.11.2025, the respondent no. 6 mentioned that the respondent no. 4 was personally known to him for long. 19. In the two Representations of the local public, stated to have been received by the respondent no. 2 and the respondent no. 6 respectively, the works with which the respondent no. 4 was involved with at the relevant time were mentioned. Those were : [i] construction of integrated 10-bedded AYUSH Hospital at Yingkiong; [ii] G+2 [35-seat] Hostel building for working women in Upper Siang District; [iii] construction of girls hostel, Government Upper Primary School at Moying, Upper Siang District; [iv] construction of a craft center building at Mariang, Upper Siang District; [v] 8 units of staff quarter at CHC, Geku; [vi] construction of administrative building, quarter for principal, gate, kitchen for boys and girls hostel and boundary wall around girls hostel, Government Model College, Geku. Having regard to the nature of constructions involved in the afore-mentioned works, it is not incomprehensible for the Court to reach a view that these kinds of construction works were key irrigation and flood protection works, and though public projects of importance, would require an Officer in the rank of Executive Engineer possessing high level of expertise to execute them. Yet, the two public representatives deemed it proper to forward the Representations vide U.O. Notes seeking retention of the respondent no. 4 at Yingkiong Division of the WRD to carry out those public works by unsettling the previous Order of transfer dated 29.10.2025, which was issued by the competent authority in the Water Resources Department in the interest of public service. 20. From the affidavits-in-opposition of the respondent no. 5 and the respondent no. 6, it can be noticed that both of them had forwarded their U.O. Notes on 31.10.2025 and 01.11.2025, subsequent to the Order dated 29.10.2025, stating that the local public had sought for retention of the respondent no. 4 at Yingkiong as he was involved in implementation and execution of several public projects as Executive Engineer, Yingkiong Division, WRD. Neither in the U.O. Notes nor in the affidavits-in-opposition, the respondent no. 5 and the respondent no. 4 at Yingkiong as he was involved in implementation and execution of several public projects as Executive Engineer, Yingkiong Division, WRD. Neither in the U.O. Notes nor in the affidavits-in-opposition, the respondent no. 5 and the respondent no. 6 have made any allegation against the petitioner and any shortcoming on his part. It is not the stand of the respondent no. 5 and the respondent no. 6 that if the petitioner is transferred as the Executive Engineer, Yingkiong Division, WRD in place of the respondent no. 4 there would be any adverse impact in implementation and execution of the ongoing public projects. It is also not the stand of the respondent no. 5 and the respondent no. 6 that the petitioner would not be suitable to implement and execute the ongoing public projects. 21. On receipt of the U.O. Notes form the respondent no. 5 and the respondent no. 6 in the Water Resources Department, it was expected that the request made by them on the basis of such public representations would be objectively assessed by the Water Resources Department authorities to exercise the discretion. On going through the records of the relevant file, as annexed to the case papers as Annexure-16, it is discernible that none of the authorities before whom the proposal for retention of the respondent no. 4 was placed had made any comment either in favour of the respondent no. 4 or in favour of the petitioner, except subscribing their signatures, in the file. It is suggestive of a situation where the public functionaries had abdicated their responsibility to decide in the matter of transfer from the standpoint of administrative exigency to the U.O. Notes forwarded by the two public representatives. 22. In Pubi Lombi [supra], the impugned transfer Order was of 15.11.2022. By the said Order dated 15.11.2022, the appellant who was holding the post of Deputy Director of School Education [DDSE], Seppa, East Kameng District was transferred as Principal, Dani Punia Government Higher Secondary School [GHSS], Ziro and the respondent no. 5 was transferred from the post of Principal, GHSS, Kanubari, Longding District and was posted as DDSE, Leparada District with a condition that he would join the transferred post in the last part of April, 2023. Such condition was incorporated for the reason that the incumbent holding the post of DDSE, Leparada District would be superannuated in the last part of April, 2023. Such condition was incorporated for the reason that the incumbent holding the post of DDSE, Leparada District would be superannuated in the last part of April, 2023. Pursuant to the Order dated 15.11.2022, the appellant joined at his transferred place of posting at Ziro. On 19.04.2023, the respondent no. 5 was released to join at his transferred place of posting in terms of the Order dated 15.11.2022 and on being so released, the respondent no. 5 submitted his joining report on 20.04.2023. But the Order dated 15.11.2022 was partially modified by the impugned Order dated 20.04.2023 whereby the respondent no. 5 was retained as Principal at the GHSS, Kanubari, Longding District and the appellant was transferred from the post of Principal, Dani Kunia GHSS, Ziro as the DDSE, Leparada District. The respondent no. 5 challenged the Order dated 20.04.2023 primarily on the ground that the impugned transfer Order was made on the basis of a U.O. Note dated 28.02.2023 put up by the MLA, 29 – Basar [ST] LAC. 22.1. Taking note of the entire facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under :- 16. On examining the facts of the present case, it is apparent that Respondent 5 herein was transferred from Government Higher Secondary School [GHSS] Kanubari, Longding District to Leparada as Deputy Director of School Education [DDSE] vide Order dated 15.11.2022 and was directed to join in the last part of April 2023. The U.O. Note dated 28.02.2023 has been written by the MLA specifying the administrative exigency and public interest in posting the appellant on the post of DDSE, Leparada. 17. The said U.O. Note has been examined and competent authority has exercised its discretion in favour of the appellant, and Respondent 5 herein has been retained on the same post in the same district in same status which he was holding prior to order of transfer dated 15.11.2022 un-affecting his salary. Besides, it is also averred by the State that the modified order dated 20.04.2023 was passed prior to effective period during which Respondent 5 was directed to join i.e. in the last part of April 2023. Besides, it is also averred by the State that the modified order dated 20.04.2023 was passed prior to effective period during which Respondent 5 was directed to join i.e. in the last part of April 2023. In the absence of any plea of mala fide or no violation of any statutory provision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the transfer order dated 20.04.2023 holding that the interference was not justified on the unsubstantiated pretext that the proposed modification was arbitrary or without application of mind for the sole reason that it was mooted by the MLA. 23. From the above two decisions, it transpires that an MLA of the concerned LAC being a public representative of the area can make an opinion in matters of transfer and posting of public servants keeping the interest of public service in mind. If he is in receipt of any public complaint or if he has any personal knowledge as regards suitability of a public servant or allegation of any misdeeds of a public servant to be transferred in the areas of the LAC then he can make the concerned Department aware of his opinion and concerns. No such situation is present in the case in hand. 24. It would be apposite to refer to the following observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of N.K. Singh vs. Union of India and others, [1994] 6 SCC 98 : - 9. Transfer of a public servant from a significant post can be prejudicial to public interest only if the transfer was avoidable and the successor is not suitable for the post. Suitability is a matter for objective assessment by the hierarchical superiors in administration. To introduce and rely on the element of prejudice to public interest as a vitiating factor of the transfer of a public servant, it must be first pleaded and proved that the replacement was by a person not suitable for the important post and the transfer was avoidable. Unless this is pleaded and proved at the threshold, no further inquiry into this aspect is necessary and its absence is sufficient to exclude this factor from consideration as a vitiating element in the impugned transfer. Accordingly, this aspect requires consideration at the outset. 25. The above observations regarding suitability are relevant for both the relieved officer and the relieving officer. Accordingly, this aspect requires consideration at the outset. 25. The above observations regarding suitability are relevant for both the relieved officer and the relieving officer. The stance of the State respondents would be adverted to in the later part of this order. But, it is pertinent to mention that the State respondents have not taken any stand that if the petitioner is allowed to take charge of the post of Executive Engineer, Yingkiong Division, WRD there would be any adverse impact in implementation and execution of the ongoing public projects in the Yingkiong Division of the WRD. No stand has been taken by the State respondents that the petitioner would not be suitable to carry on implementation and execution of any of the ongoing public projects in the Yingkiong Division of the WRD. As found out from the affidavits-in- opposition of the respondent no. 5 and the respondent no. 6, no adverse comment has been made against the petitioner and there is no whisper from their ends that the petitioner would be unsuitable to discharge the duties as the Executive Engineer, Yingkiong Division, WRD. 26. In the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent no. 4, an Assistant Engineer and working functionally as Executive Engineer, it has been admitted that he has completed a tenure of two years at Yingkiong Division, WRD while taking a stand that a tenure beyond the normal two years tenure is permissible in exigent circumstances. He has not brought on record any adverse material against the petitioner. It is not his pleaded case that his transfer from Yingkiong Division, WRD would adversely impact the ongoing public projects in the Yingkiong Division of the WRD. It is mentioned that the local MLAs had initiated the Notes for his retention only in the public interest of development activities. He has specifically averred that the modification Order dated 10.11.2025 has neither expressed nor has implied incapability or inefficiency of the petitioner. 27. Notwithstanding the above observations, it is pertinent to note that while in the Order dated 29.10.2025, it was mentioned that the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh was pleased to order the transfer and posting of the officers ‘in the interest of public service’, it was not mentioned in the impugned Order dated 10.11.2025 that the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh had made the order of transfer and posting ‘in the interest of public service’. In the impugned Order dated 10.11.2025, the respondent no. 4 has been shown to be transferred from Yingkiong WRD Division [ under order of posting to Daporijo WRD Circle ] and retained at Yingkiong WRD Division as Executive Engineer. At the same time, the petitioner has been shown to be transferred from Seppa WRD Division [ under order of posting at Yingkiong WRD Division ] and has been posted at Daporijo WRD Circle as Executive Engineer [P&D]. 28. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent nos. 1 & 3, it is averred that the modification in the Order dated 10.11.2025 was made in administrative interest keeping in view field requirements, continuity of ongoing works, and functional necessity of the Department. While admitting that the respondent no. 4 has been posted at Yingkiong Division of the WRD since 11.07.2023, it is mentioned that tenure norms are directory, not mandatory. Mere completion of tenure at one place does not give rise to a legal or enforceable right. It is stated that the Office Memorandum [O.M.] dated 13.02.2007, relied upon by the petitioner, is a matter of record but the interpretation given by the petitioner is incorrect as the Office Memorandum does not prohibit modification of transfer and posting order. It is stated that the Representations received from the MLAs were acknowledged merely as inputs and those did not influence the decision. 29. In the absence of any material indicating objective assessment as regards suitability or otherwise of the two Officers involved in the impugned Order, the Court is reminded of the settled principle that when a public functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity is to be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Recording of reason is prima facie suggestive of conscious application of mind and non-recording of reason is indicative of non-application of mind. The obligation to record reasons is a possible check against arbitrary action on the part of the authority invested with the power to transfer. The case in hand seems to be one where no reason was assigned for issuance of the impugned Order and reasons are subsequently assigned in the affidavit. 30. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. The obligation to record reasons is a possible check against arbitrary action on the part of the authority invested with the power to transfer. The case in hand seems to be one where no reason was assigned for issuance of the impugned Order and reasons are subsequently assigned in the affidavit. 30. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 2, it is admitted that in compliance of the Order dated 29.10.2025, the petitioner was released from Seppa Division by the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Jamiri, Bichom District on 06.11.2025 [after-noon]. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his joining report as Executive Engineer, Yingkiong Division, WRD addressed to him on 06.11.2025 and the joining letter was personally handed over by the petitioner to the Personal Assistant of the respondent no. 2 at the official residence of the respondent no. 2 in Pasighat. The respondent no. 2 has stated that during the said period, he was out of station and he resumed office on 10.11.2025. The respondent no. 2 has further stated that the soft copy of the petitioner’s joining letter was also forwarded to the WhatsApp account of the respondent no. 2 by the petitioner through his WhatsApp account at 11-21 a.m. on 06.11.2025. On 07.11.2025, soft copies of two letters were forwarded by the petitioner through his WhatsApp account to the WhatsApp account of the respondent no. 2. The contents of those letters were with regards to assumption of charge of the office of the Executive Engineer, Yingkiong Division, WRD ex-parte. 31. At this juncture, it is found necessary to refer to an Office Memorandum dated 13.02.2007 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Training, Government of Arunachal Pradesh on the subject : ‘Joining and Relief and Transfer of Charge of Officers on Transfer – Certain Clarifications Issued – regarding’. It has been clarified that once transfer / posting orders are issued by the competent authority, no further order or permission is required for the officer to join his new place of posting. By the Office Memorandum, certain instructions regarding joining and relief of officers on transfer are reiterated for clarity. The following instructions are of pertinence :- [2] As soon as the transfer / posting orders are issued, the relieving officer will proceed and join in his new place of posting without undue delay. By the Office Memorandum, certain instructions regarding joining and relief of officers on transfer are reiterated for clarity. The following instructions are of pertinence :- [2] As soon as the transfer / posting orders are issued, the relieving officer will proceed and join in his new place of posting without undue delay. [3] The relieved officer will prepare the accounts of the cash, stores and other records to be handed over to the relieving officer on his assumption of charge of the office, hand over the same to the relieving officer, as and when he comes to assume charge of the office. The relieved officer should not absent himself or obstruct in anyway his reliever from joining the post smoothly. Such action, if any, on the part of the relieved officer will tantamount to disobedience of Govt. orders, attracting disciplinary action under the CCS [CCA] and other relevant Rules in force. [4] In cases, where the relieved officer does not hand over charge to the relieving officer when he comes to join, the relieving officer will assume charge of the office unilaterally / ex- parte so as to implement the Govt.'s orders and to enable the officer to discharge his duties and responsibilities without delay. The relieved officer will stand automatically relieved once the relieving officer assumes charge of the office. A copy of the Joining Report and Assumption of Charge should be sent to the Head of the Department concerned, the immediate Controlling Officer, the Treasury Officer, and all concerned, as usual. 32. From the materials on record, it has emerged that after the Order dated 29.10.2025, the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Jamiri who was the Controlling Officer of the petitioner at that point of time, passed an Order bearing no. WRCJ/Estt/PF-84/2024-25 dated 06.11.2025 whereby the petitioner was released from the post of Executive Engineer, WRD, Sepa on and from 06.11.2025 [After-Noon] to enable the petitioner join his new place of posting as Executive Engineer, WRD, Yingkiong in pursuance of the Order dated 29.10.2025. A copy of the said Order dated 06.11.2025 was also forwarded to the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Pangin who was to be the next Controlling Officer for the petitioner, for information. The petitioner accordingly handed over the charge of Executive Engineer, WRD, Sepa on 04.11.2025. 33. After being so released, the petitioner as the Relieving Officer for the respondent no. The petitioner accordingly handed over the charge of Executive Engineer, WRD, Sepa on 04.11.2025. 33. After being so released, the petitioner as the Relieving Officer for the respondent no. 4, had proceeded to Pangin to report before the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Pangin and to submit his joining letter. The petitioner had reported before the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Pangin on 06.11.2025 and submitted a joining letter of even date. In his affidavit-in-opposition, the respondent no. 2 has admitted that the petitioner had submitted his joining letter as the Executive Engineer, WRD, Yingkiong on 06.11.2025 and the joining letter was personally handed over by the petitioner to the Personal Assistant of the respondent no. 2 in the official residence of the respondent no. 2. The Personal Assistant of the respondent no. 2 had acknowledged the receipt of the joining letter of the petitioner under his signature. The office of the respondent no. 2 also acknowledged the receipt of the joining letter of the petitioner under seal vide Receipt no. 1196 dated 07.11.2025. The respondent no. 2 has admitted that during the said period from 06.11.2025 to 10.11.2025, he was out of station and he resumed his official duties only on 10.11.2025. It is further mentioned by the respondent no. 2 that the soft copy of the joining letter was also forwarded by the petitioner to him through WhatsApp and he received the same in his WhatsApp account at 11-21 am on 06.11.2025 itself. Therefore, it is not open for the respondent no. 2 to take a plea that his office did not receive any copy of the joining letter. 34. It is the case of the petitioner that after submitting the joining letter in the afore-stated manner on 06.11.2025, he proceeded to Yingkiong to assume charge of the post of Executive Engineer, WRD, Yingkiong Division on 07.11.2025. At Yingkiong, the petitioner proceeded to the office to take over charge from the respondent no. 4 as the Relieving Officer as per the procedure laid down in the Office Memorandum dated 13.02.2007. By going to the office of the Executive Engineer, WRD, Yingkiong Division, the petitioner did not find the respondent no. 4 who was the Relieved Officer. The factum of absence of the respondent no. 4 is established from the admission made by the respondent no. By going to the office of the Executive Engineer, WRD, Yingkiong Division, the petitioner did not find the respondent no. 4 who was the Relieved Officer. The factum of absence of the respondent no. 4 is established from the admission made by the respondent no. 4 in his affidavit-in-opposition wherein he has stated that he was on station leave on and from 04.11.2025 including 06.11.2025. The respondent no. 4 has maintained silence as to when he resumed his duties in the office after 06.11.2025. The petitioner had started functioning as the Executive Engineer, Yingkiong Division, WRD on and from 07.11.2025. 35. The petitioner has stated that in the absence of the respondent no. 4 in the office of the WRD, Yingkiong Division on 07.11.2025, the petitioner had no option but to assume the charge of the office of the Executive Engineer, Yingkiong Division of the WRD unilaterally in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 13.02.2007. On 07.11.2025, the petitioner wrote to the respondent no. 2 informing him that the Relieved Officer was absent in the office on his arrival and on further enquiry, it was found that the Relieved Officer was not in the station for many days. It was further mentioned that the petitioner had requested the respondent no. 4 via WhatsApp at 08-36 p.m., 06.11.2025 to be present in his office so as to enable him to take over the charge, and the respondent no. 4 to hand over charge as the Relieved Officer. It was further mentioned that having found the respondent no. 4 to be absent in the office not only that day but also from several days before, and in order to implement the Order dated 29.10.2025, he had to assume the charge of the post of Executive Engineer, WRD, Yingkiong Division on ex parte basis in the after-noon of 07.11.2025 as per the requirement of the Office Memorandum dated 13.02.2007. Along with the Letter dated 07.11.2025, the petitioner also forwarded a Certificate of Transfer of Charges dated 07.11.2025 to [i] the respondent no. 2; [ii] the Secretary, WRD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh; [iii] the Chief Engineer, WRD, Itanagar; [iv] the Deputy Commissioner, Yingkiong, Upper Siang District; [v] the Accountant General [A&E], Itanagar; [vi] the State Bank of India, Yingkiong, Upper Siang, etc. for information. 36. 2; [ii] the Secretary, WRD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh; [iii] the Chief Engineer, WRD, Itanagar; [iv] the Deputy Commissioner, Yingkiong, Upper Siang District; [v] the Accountant General [A&E], Itanagar; [vi] the State Bank of India, Yingkiong, Upper Siang, etc. for information. 36. The professed norm of the State Government, as notified by the Office Memorandum dated 13.02.2007, is that in a case where the Relieved Officer does not hand over charge to the Relieving Officer when he comes to join, the Relieving Officer would assume charge of the office unilaterally/ex parte so as to implement the Government Order and to enable the Officer to discharge his duties and responsibilities. As per the Office Memorandum dated 13.02.2007, once the Relieving Officer assumes charge of the office unilaterally in compliance of the Order of transfer passed by the competent authority in the Government, the Relived Officer stand automatically relieved. In the case in hand, the petitioner had to take over the charge of the office of Executive Engineer, WRD, Yingkiong Division unilaterally in the above obtaining fact situation. A Relieving Officer like the petitioner can follow the procedure to the extent possible from his end. When a Relieving Officer goes to report himself before the Controlling Officer at first, and the Relieved Officer thereafter in order to assume the charge and at the time of reporting, neither the Controlling Officer nor the Relieved Officer keeps himself present in their respective office as per the extant procedure, the Relieving Officer like the petitioner would have no option but to assume charge unilaterally/ex parte basis as per the procedure laid down in the Office Memorandum dated 13.02.2007. In the present case, the respondent no. 2 as the Controlling Officer and the respondent no. 4 as the Relieved Officer made themselves absent from their respective office from days prior to 06.11.2025 and 07.11.2025 respectively. 37. As the petitioner is found to have assumed the charge of the office of the Executive Engineer, Yingkiong Division, WRD by following the procedure strictly in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 13.02.2007, this Court finds that the Order dated 29.10.2025 stood effectuated on 07.11.2025 in so far as the petitioner is concerned. Therefore, it is to be held that the petitioner had assumed the charge of the office of the Executive Engineer, Yingkiong Division, WRD on and from 07.11.2025 onwards. Therefore, it is to be held that the petitioner had assumed the charge of the office of the Executive Engineer, Yingkiong Division, WRD on and from 07.11.2025 onwards. With such assumption of charge by the petitioner and as per the Office Memorandum dated 13.02.2007, the respondent no. 4 stood relieved from the post of Executive Engineer, Yingkiong Division, WRD from that moment onward. By choosing not to join in the post of Executive Engineer [P&D], Daporijo Circle, WRD thereafter the respondent no. 4 had kept his status in a state of uncertainty for which no one but he is responsible. In such facts and circumstances, this Court is not in a position to hold that on and from 07.11.2025, the respondent no. 4 was holding the post of Executive Engineer, WRD, Yingkiong Division. 38. For the findings arrived at as above, the impugned Order dated 10.11.2025 is held to be infirm as the said Order has been passed by the respondent no. 1, without proper application of mind, on the suppositions that the petitioner was under an order of posting at Yingkiong Division, WRD and the respondent no. 4 was under an order of posting to Daporijo Circle, WRD. It needs to be iterated that by the impugned Order dated 10.11.2025, the petitioner was transferred from Sepa Division, WRD to Daporijo Circle, WRD and the respondent no. 4 was seen to be posted and retained at Yingkiong Division, WRD. As this Court has found that on and from 07.11.2025, the petitioner was at the post of Executive Engineer, Yingkiong Division, WRD and the respondent no. 4 was not in the post of Executive Engineer, Yingkiong Division, WRD, the impugned Order dated 10.11.2025 is liable to be set aside and quashed. It is accordingly set aside and quashed. 39. As a result, the petitioner is to be treated to be working as the Executive Engineer, Yingkiong Division, WRD on and from 07.11.2025. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated. By an interim Order dated 14.11.2025, the impugned Order dated 10.11.2025 was stayed. The interim Order of stay dated 14.11.2025 stands accordingly merged with this Order. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.