Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010230212025 2026:GAU-AS:6666 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6064/2025 BHASKARJYOTI KALITA SON OF LATE BINOD CH KALITA, R/O MALIKUCHI, DIGHALI, WARD NO 17, BYE LANE NO. 2, PO BOR DIGHALI, DISTRICT- NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN 781334 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-19 3:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES NALBARI DISTRICT NALBARI ASSAM PIN 781335 4:THE SUB DIVISIONAL MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER KAMARKUCHI BLOCK PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KAMARKUCHI NALBARI ASSAM PIN 78134 Page No.# 2/6 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I H SAIKIA, MR. K KALITA,MR K KASHYAB,MR. B BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HEALTH, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 13.05.2026 Heard Mr. I. H. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. P. Bora, learned Standing Counsel for the Health and Family Welfare Department. 2. By this application filed under article 226 of the constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside of the order dated 19.09.2025, by which the attachment order was cancelled and the petitioner was directed to render his service in his original place of posting in Simonabasti, i.e., in the district of Nagaon. 3. The petitioner has also prayed for setting aside and quashing of the order dated 01.02.2025, i.e., the release order by the Joint Director of Health Services, Nalbari, by which the petitioner was released from his place of attachment and as well as the other release orders. 4. The case of the petitioner is that, he was appointed by order dated 16th May, 2011, as a Multi-Purpose Worker in the Pukhuripar Sub-Centre, Boko Block, Public Health Centre. Thereafter on 07.10.2016, he was transferred and posted at Simonabasti BPHC, Nagaon, under the Joint Director of Health services. Thereafter, the petitioner was attached at various places by various orders. Subsequently, the petitioner was released from the attached post and were Page No.# 3/6 directed to join in the original place of posting vide order dated 01.02.2025.It is stated here that along with petitioner, a number of employees were released from their attached post and were directed to join in their original place of posting. Thereafter, on 03.02.2025, the petitioner was released from the attached place under Kamarkuchi BPHC to enable him to join in his original place of posting. 5. The said order dated 03.02.2025 is the release order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the Office Memorandum dated 21.05.1987, the spouse posting was provided for and in Clause-2 of the said memorandum, it is provided that if one spouse belongs to one state service and the other spouse belong to another state service, the spouse with the longer service at a station may apply for his transfer and the said authority may post the said officer to the station of the other spouse and if no post is available at that station, the spouse should be transferred to the nearest station where the post is available. 6. The wife of the petitioner was appointed as a subject teacher/assistant teacher in English by order dated 31.12.2011 and the said appointment was on contractual basis and that she was regularly appointed as a graduate teacher vide order dated 15.02.2025 and was posted to the school of Balikaria Basudev Bidyapeeth in the district of Nalbari. 7. By taking into account the Office Memorandum, the petitioner has submitted a representation for his posting at Nalbari where his wife was working and it is also stated that he has a minor daughter and for not getting proper response, the petitioner was constrained to file one writ petition being WPC No.3984/2025, and this Court vide order dated 30.07.2025, had directed that the petitioner may file a representation giving his full details to the authority Page No.# 4/6 concerned for spouse posting. 8. 8. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner had submitted a detailed representation before the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health and Family Welfare Department on 01.08.2025, and the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam of the Health Department by speaking order dated 19.09.2025 intimated the petitioner that there was an administrative requirement to maintain adequate public health services at Simonibasti, BPHC, Nagaon and that accommodating the petitioner at Nalbari on a permanent basis would create a vacancy in the original place of posting and the same may affect public health services in that area. 9. It was also stipulated that government had accommodated the petitioner many years at the place where his spouse was posted by way of attachment. It was further stated that if the petitioner can arrange a mutual transfer with another eligible multipurpose worker from Nalbari district to Simonabasti, his transfer request may be accorded. With these conclusions, the request by the petitioner was rejected. 10. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on a number of occasions, other employees of other departments without insisting on mutual transfer were transferred to the various posts in the District of Nalbari and others without adhering to the request of the petitioner. As such, a prayer is made that this Court may direct the authorities to post the petitioner at Nalbari or in any nearby areas in view of the office memorandum mentioned above. 11. On the other hand, Mr. D.P. Bora, learned counsel for Public Health and Family Welfare, submits that transfer is an exigency of service and the same is left to the authorities concerned. He also states that the petitioner was accommodated at the place of posting where his wife was posted on attachment Page No.# 5/6 basis on his request for a number of years, i.e., more than 10 years during his service career and that after the same he was brought back to his original place of posting i.e, Simonabasti due to exigencies of service. He has also placed one instruction dated 24.03.2026, by which it was intimated that there was no vacancy in the District of Nalbari, Barpeta and Kamrup(M) of multipurpose workers. 12. He had relied on a judgment of this Court in Tsering Norbu Vs. The State of AP and 3 ors. passed in Writ Appeal No. 34/2025 vide order dated 10.12.2025, wherein it was held and stated that transfer orders should not be interfered with by this Court. 13. It was further held that interference with transfer orders would be justified only in cases of malafides or infraction of any professed norm or principle and not in cases where carrier prospects remain unaffected and no detriment is caused. 14. It is although no longer res integra that Court should not interfere with the transfer orders passed due to exigencies of service and only on grounds of malafides, the same can be interfered. However, the memorandum for spouse posting cannot be lost sight of. 15. In the instant case, therefore it is directed that one of the spouse who had a longer period of service in his or her service tenure would make a representation before the Authority for spouse posting. It is seen that the petitioner was appointed in the Year, 2011 and his wife was also appointed in 2011 but the same appointments were contractual in nature and the petitioner was transferred and posted on contractual basis and the wife of the petitioner was regularly appointed in the year 2025. 16. It can be therefore seen that the petitioner had a longer period of service Page No.# 6/6 by taking into account even the contractual period. Even if the contractual period is not considered, the petitioner would have a longer period of service. Although the attachment orders were at different places, the Authorities would consider the representation made by the petitioner by considering the requirement of educating the child as well as in looking after the mother of the petitioner. 17. As far as mutual transfer is concerned, the same may be again considered by the Authorities concerned as the petitioner was not able to find anyone who would agree to come down to Simonabasti and for that, the petitioner cannot be made to stay at one place in violation of the office memorandum provided for spouse posting. 18. The judgment referred by the learned standing counsel for the Family and Welfare Department can be distinguished to the effect that an instant case relates to spouse posting. 19. In view of the same, the authorities concerned would consider the representation within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the order. 20. Further the petitioner is also directed to submit the representation along with a copy of this order at the earliest. 21. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant