Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010196372026 2026:GAU-AS:13080 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4935/2026 SRI BIDYUT HAZARIKA SON OF SRI BAKUL HAZARIKA, RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 8, MOHMAKI GAON, P.O. AND P.S. BOKAKHAT, DISTRICT GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN 785612 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GUWAHATI 781006 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER GOLAGHAT P.O. P.S. AND DISTRICT GOLAGHAT ASSAM - 785621. 3:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER GOLAGHAT P.O. P.S. AND DISTRICT GOLAGHAT ASSAM -785621. 4:THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BOKAKHAT P.O. AND P.S. BOKAKHAT DISTRICT GOLAGHAT ASSAM - 785612 5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER MORONGI REVENUE CIRCLE DISTRICT GOLAGHAT PIN- 785621 ASSA Page No.# 2/8 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. SURAJIT DUTTA, MR. P P BORTHAKUR,A GOSWAMI,KAKU GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 09-09-2026 Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. P. P. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. K. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for all the respondents. 2. The challenge made in the present writ petition is to the order dated 02.09.2026 issued by the District Commissioner, Golaghat, the respondent No. 2 herein, whereby the earlier order dated 09.07.2026 transferring the petitioner from the office of the Co-District Commissioner, Bokakhat to the office of the Circle Officer, Morongi Revenue Circle has been continued until further orders. The petitioner has also sought a direction upon the respondent authorities to allow him to resume his duties at the office of the Co-District Commissioner, Bokakhat. 3. Having regard to the nature of the grievance projected and the relief sought for which pertains to transfer and posting, the matter is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself. 4. The case of the petitioner is that he is serving as a Senior Assistant under the District Establishment of Golaghat and, by order dated 08.07.2026, he was transferred from the office of the District Page No.# 3/8 Commissioner, Golaghat to the office of the Co-District Commissioner, Bokakhat. In compliance with the said order, the petitioner joined the office of the Co-District Commissioner, Bokakhat on 09.07.2026. However, on the very same day, by another order dated 09.07.2026 issued by the Additional District Commissioner, Golaghat, the petitioner was transferred from Bokakhat to the office of the Circle Officer, Morongi Revenue Circle. 5. The petitioner has placed the history of his transfers before the Court and has stated that from 21.06.2017 onwards he has been transferred on several occasions. It is further stated that between 16.08.2025 and 09.07.2026, five transfer orders were issued in respect of the petitioner, out of which the order dated 16.08.2025 was stayed shortly thereafter and the order dated 02.02.2026 was not implemented. It is stated that the order dated 08.07.2026 posting the petitioner at Bokakhat was acted upon by him by joining on 09.07.2026, but on the very same day another order was issued transferring him to Morongi Revenue Circle. 6. It is further stated that the petitioner is suffering from a spinal disorder and has sustained a fracture at D11, resulting in severe pain during long journeys. The petitioner claims to be under continuous medical attention and has been advised by his physician not to undertake frequent travel to distant places. It is stated that the distance between his residence and the office of the Circle Officer, Morongi Revenue Circle is approximately 47 kilometres and, consequently, the petitioner would be required to travel approximately 94 kilometres every day if he were to join at Morongi. 7. The petitioner has also placed before the authorities the medical condition of his wife and has stated that she requires constant medical Page No.# 4/8 care. It is further stated that the petitioner had submitted representations before the respondent No. 2 on different occasions bringing these circumstances to the notice of the authority. The petitioner has also referred to the fact that his son is studying in Class IX at DPS, Numaligarh and that shifting his son to another school at this stage would cause considerable difficulty. 8. Aggrieved by the order dated 09.07.2026, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 4038/2026. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 25.08.2026 directing the respondent No. 2 to consider the representation dated 13.07.2026 submitted by the petitioner and to dispose of the same by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 7 (seven) days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the said order. The respondent No. 2 was also directed to take into account the circumstances noticed by this Court in the said order, including the earlier direction regarding coercive steps against the petitioner and the submission that the petitioner had not been permitted to join at Bokakhat. 9. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order dated 02.09.2026. By the said order, the respondent No. 2 decided to continue the order dated 09.07.2026 until further orders. The impugned order records that the transfer was made for administrative convenience and in the interest of public service and that, as per the report of the Circle Officer, Morongi Revenue Circle, smooth functioning of official work was being hampered on account of shortage of manpower in the said Revenue Circle, particularly in view of the ongoing census work and the flood situation. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Page No.# 5/8 Court by filing the present writ petition. 10. Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order dated 02.09.2026 has not been passed in compliance with the direction issued by this Court on 25.08.2026, as the order does not constitute a reasoned and speaking order. It is submitted that the respondent No. 2 has merely reiterated the administrative requirement for which the petitioner was transferred to Morongi and has not considered the specific grounds raised by the petitioner in his representation. 11. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind inasmuch as the authority has not dealt with the circumstances placed before it in the representation and has proceeded only on the basis of the administrative requirement stated in the report of the Circle Officer, Morongi Revenue Circle. It is submitted that the direction issued by this Court contemplated consideration of the petitioner's grievance and not merely reiteration of the reason for his transfer. The order, therefore, is arbitrary and liable to be interfered with. 12. Mr. J. K. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, opposes the prayer made in the writ petition. He submits that the impugned order dated 02.09.2026 has been passed by the respondent No. 2 pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in the earlier proceeding and in accordance with law. 13. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available before this Court. 14. The grievance of the petitioner essentially arises from the manner in which his representation has been dealt with pursuant to the order dated Page No.# 6/8 25.08.2026 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4038/2026. It would, therefore, be necessary to first notice the direction issued by this Court in the said proceeding and examine whether the impugned order satisfies the requirement of a reasoned and speaking order. 15. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the earlier proceeding was with regard to the transfer order dated 09.07.2026 and the representation submitted by him against the said transfer. This Court, while disposing of W.P.(C) No. 4038/2026 by order dated 25.08.2026, directed the respondent No. 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner and to dispose of the same by a reasoned and speaking order. The said order did not direct the respondent No. 2 to take any particular decision on the representation or to post the petitioner at Bokakhat. The decision was left to the competent authority upon consideration of the grievance projected by the petitioner. 16. A perusal of the impugned order dated 02.09.2026 shows that the respondent No. 2 has considered the representation of the petitioner and has recorded the administrative circumstances which weighed with the authority in continuing his posting at Morongi Revenue Circle. The order refers to the shortage of manpower and the requirement of smooth functioning of official work in view of the ongoing census work and the prevailing flood situation. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be said to be an order passed without assigning reasons. 17. The direction to pass a reasoned and speaking order did not require the respondent No. 2 to accept the grounds urged by the petitioner. The requirement was to consider the representation and thereafter take a decision by disclosing the basis for such decision. Merely because the Page No.# 7/8 individual circumstances projected by the petitioner did not result in the decision sought for by him would not, by itself, render the impugned order non-speaking. 18. The circumstances relating to the petitioner’s medical condition, the medical condition of his wife and the education of his son may undoubtedly be relevant considerations. However, such circumstances do not, by themselves, confer upon the petitioner a right to remain posted at a particular place. The petitioner is holding a transferable post and the competent authority is entitled to take into consideration the requirements of public service while determining the posting of its employees. 19. The petitioner has also relied upon the history of his transfers, including the fact that the order dated 09.07.2026 was issued on the very day on which he joined at Bokakhat. These circumstances were before this Court in the earlier proceeding. The order dated 25.08.2026 did not interfere with the transfer order dated 09.07.2026, but directed the competent authority to consider the representation of the petitioner. The subsequent decision is, therefore, required to be examined on the basis of the reasons recorded in the impugned order. 20. It is settled that an order of transfer is an incidence of Government service and that the question as to where an employee should be posted is ordinarily within the domain of the appropriate authority. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be vitiated by mala fides or made in violation of statutory provisions, interference by the Court would not be warranted. The authority, while making a transfer, is nevertheless expected to have regard to the applicable Government guidelines and, where a representation is made against the transfer, to consider the same having Page No.# 8/8 regard to the exigencies of administration. Such guidelines, however, ordinarily do not confer upon a Government employee a legally enforceable right to claim posting at a particular place. 21. In the present case, the reasons recorded by the respondent No. 2 relate to the administrative functioning of the Morongi Revenue Circle and the requirement of manpower in view of the ongoing census work and the prevailing flood situation. The assessment of such administrative requirements is primarily within the domain of the competent authority. While exercising judicial review, this Court would not ordinarily substitute its own assessment for that of the administrative authority in matters relating to deployment and posting of Government employees. No material is placed before this Court to establish that the impugned order is vitiated by mala fides, statutory violation, lack of competence or patent arbitrariness. 22. In view of the above, this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 02.09.2026. 23. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant