Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040014642026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/420/2026 Jumgo Geyi Son of Shri Yijum Geyi, permanent resident of Galu Village, PO and PS Basar, Leparada District, Arunachal Pradesh and presently serving as Range Forest Officer, Likabali Forest Range, Likabali, Lower Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 3 Ors represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Hoff (E R and CC) Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Environment Forest and Climate Change Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 3:The Divisional Forest Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Likabali Forest Division Likabali Lower Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 4:Smti Dakter Riba Age: 0 Occupation : RFO Tippi Orchid Range Page No.# 2/3 Office of the Divisional Forest Officer Silviculture Division PO and PS Balukpong Bichom District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Lissing Perme, Kipa Tagar,Toge Rolley,T Tagam,Signal Yirang,A Perme,Krishna Dubey Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 07.09.2026 Heard Shri L. Perme, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri RH Nabam, learned Addl. Advocate General, AP for the official respondents. 2. Considering the subject matter involved and the order propose to be passed, the instant writ petition is being disposed of at the motion stage itself. 3. The challenge is against an order of transfer dated 26.08.2026, concerning certain personnel of the Forest Department, in which the petitioner, who is working as a Range Forest Officer, is also involved. By the said order at Sl. No. 13, the petitioner has been transferred from Likabali Range to the Alo Range. 4. Shri Perme, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that though the petitioner has completed the tenure of two years, he has two children and both are studying in class 8 and class 5 respectively and transferring at the mid-session, would cause unnecessary hardships. He has submitted that in the meantime, he has filed a representation dated 31.08.2026, which has also not been considered. 5. On the other hand, Shri Nabam, learned Addl. Advocate General has Page No.# 3/3 submitted that the transfer has been done after completion of the tenure and in the public interest. He has also submitted that hardships, if any, cannot come into the way of the transfer, which are mainly done in the interest of public. 6. The norm holding the field does not provide for any consideration on the aspect of academic-session of the children of an officer. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, relied upon certain judgments, as per which such consideration can also be made. 7. Having taken note of the rival submissions, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served by directing consideration and disposal of the representation dated 31.08.2026 said to be filed by the petitioner. Let such representation be considered and disposed of expeditiously and preferably within a period of one week from today. By balancing the equities, it is provided that till such disposal, status-quo as on today be maintained. 8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant