Page No. 1/4 GAHC040005392026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WA/25/2026 Bijoy Pertin Son of Shri Dana Pertin, resident of Pasighat, PO and PS Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 3 Ors represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Food and Civil Supplies Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Director Age: 0 Occupation : Food and Civil Supplies Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 4:Dana Yirang Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Late Maklung Yirang permanent resident of Ruksin East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh current address C/o SDFCSO Anini Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh 7921 Page No. 2/4 Advocate for the Petitioner : Mingkong Pertin, Maga Toni,Moni Bori,Eddie Payeng,J Pabi,1 H Das,B Gogoi,M Biswas Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), SC (Food and Civil Supplies Department),Tagum Jamoh BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 21.04.2026 [Manish Choudhury, J.] Heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the writ appellant; Ms. T. Wangmu, learned Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh for the respondent no. 1; and Mr. K. Tabang, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. T. Jamoh, learned Standing Counsel, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh for the respondent nos. 2 & 3. 2. This intra-court appeal is directed against an Order dated 07.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 153/2026. The writ petition is preferred by the writ appellant as the writ petitioner to assail an Order dated 19.03.2026 whereby he has been transferred from Pasighat to Roing. The petitioner is presently serving in the rank and post of District Food and Civil Supplies Officer [DFCSO]. 3. By Order dated 07.04.2026, the learned Single Judge while issuing notice to the respondents, making the notice, returnable on 05.05.2026, has also heard the learned counsel for the parties also on the interim prayer of stay / suspension of the impugned Order. After hearing the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned State Counsel, the learned Single Judge has declined to the extend any interim relief sought for on behalf of the writ petitioner in the form of stay / suspension of the impugned Order dated 19.03.2026. 4. By Order dated 19.03.2026, issued under the hand of the respondent no. 2, three Page No. 3/4 incumbents holding the post of District Food and Civil Supplies Officer [DFCSO] / Sub- Divisional Food and Civil Supplies Officer [SDFCSO] have been transferred. The petitioner who is serving as DFCSO, has been transferred from Pasighat to Roing and in his place, the respondent no. 4, a SDFCSO and In-Charge, DFCSO, has been transferred from Anini to Pasighat. 5. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that during the course of his service, the appellant had foregone a promotional opportunity in order to remain in Pasighat as the appellant has an ailing father of 80 years of age. It is his submission that the appellant is required to attend his ailing father and in that connection, the petitioner has already submitted a representation before the competent authority. The same representation has not yet been given consideration. He has further submitted that the respondent no. 4, who has been transferred in the place of the appellant, is an officer who is in the feeder cadre and he is much junior to the appellant. The respondent no. 4 is only serving as In- Charge, DFCSO and his substantive rank and post is SDFCSO. He has further contended that the transfer order has been effected at the behest of elected representatives of Pasighat area and the request for transfer was pursued by the elected representatives since long. 6. The learned Single Judge has observed that the appellant has been posted at Pasighat for the last fourteen years whereas the respondent no. 4 has spent about three years at Anini wherefrom he has been transferred to Pasighat by the impugned Order dated 19.03.2026. Mr. Biswas has submitted that the petitioner is, in fact, posted at Pasighat for about twelve years. 7. On a query made by the Court, Mr. Biswas has submitted that the distance between Pasighat and Roing is about 100 km. 8. Transfer is an incidence of service and transfers are made according to administrative exigencies. The appellant has served continuously at Pasighat for a period about twelve years and in the absence of any convincing materials the transfer order cannot be termed as mala fide. Whenever a public servant is transferred he must comply with the order but if there is any genuine difficulty the public servant can represent before the employer after complying Page No. 4/4 with the order of transfer. The impugned order of transfer has not affected any of the service conditions of the appellant. A transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reason unless it is made in violation of any statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide is not to be lightly interfered with. It is the employer who is in the best position to decide to place officers / employees at places. 9. The learned Single Judge has found that the elected representatives made a request for transfer of the respondent no. 4 about a year ago and the same would not be relevant to decide in a case of transfer which is effected in administrative exigency. The respondent no. 4 has been serving as In-Charge, DFCSO from a date anterior to 19.03.2026 though he is in the substantive rank and post SDCFSO. Nothing has been submitted as regards violation of any statutory rules or nor there is any allegation of mala fide. 10. Having regard to the settled propositions of law in the matter of transfer, we do not find any infirmity in the observations, albeit tentative, made by the learned Single Judge in the Order dated 07.04.2026. As a result, we do not find any good and sufficient reason to interfere with the Order dated 07.04.2026 and therefore, this intra-court appeal lacks merit. It is therefore, dismissed. 11. It is, however, observed that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of examining the legality and validity of the interim Order dated 19.03.2026 and the same shall not be construed as observations as regards merits on any other aspects raised in the writ petition. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant