Page No.# 1/12 GAHC040003052026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/80/2026 Hano Mangfi Son of Shri Nisan Mangfi, resident of Nari Camp Village, PO Sawa, PS Chayang Tajo, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 3 Ors through the Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. 2:The Chief Engineer (Western Zone) Age: 0 Occupation : PWD Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Superintending Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Sagalee PWD Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Bopia. 4:The Executive Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Chayang Tajo PWD Division Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Rajesh Sonar, Khyoda Yayo,Gautam Natung,Meenakshi Jerang,M Basar,Michi Khambo,Binny Nyaruce,R Taku Page No.# 2/12 Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), -BEFORE- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER (ORAL) 15.06.2026 Heard Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, Hano Mangfi, who has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari and Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order/orders or directions of like nature against the transfer order dated 15.09.2025 issued by the Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2. Shri Hano Mangfi is presently serving as an Assistant Engineer at Pipu Sub-Division, East Kameng District, Seppa. He is aggrieved by the order dated 09.09.2025, whereby, he has been transferred from Pipu Sub- Division to Pijirang Sub-Division against the existing vacancy. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been transferred 4 (four) times in a year. The petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the First Order of Transfer in the year, 2014 which is annexed as Annexure-2 to the petition, whereby, the petitioner was transferred from the office of the Assistant Engineer (for short, ‘AE’), Bameng, PWD Sub-Division to office of the AE, Balijan Sub-Division on 15.10.2024. The Second Order of Transfer is dated 15.01.2025, whereby, he was transferred from AE, Bameng Sub-Division to ASW, Seppa Division. The Third Order of Transfer Page No.# 3/12 is dated 17.05.2025, whereby, he was transferred from ASW, Seppa PWD Division to Pipu Sub-Division as AE. 4. As the petitioner is aggrieved of being transferred 4 (four) times in a year, he submitted an RTI Application and the answer to his RTI Application is marked as Annexure-4 of the petition, which clearly reveals that while the petitioner’s transfer orders were passed, no notings or correspondences were recorded or were to be found in the establishment of the PWD. No reasons or justification were recorded and maintained in the Establishment. It is, therefore, contended by the petitioner that although a transfer is an incident and exigency of service, the transfer orders were passed in an arbitrary manner without recording any reasons or without the department following the proper procedure. The Policy Guidelines of transfer and posting of all categories of officers and staff in Arunachal Pradesh, indicates that a person can be transferred after 2 (two) years of service in a particular place. It is the legitimate expectation of any employee that the authority will follow the professed guidelines. Non consideration of the Policy Guidelines would tantamount to deliberate deviation of the professed guidelines. It is argued that if in any condition, a person has to be transferred before completion of normal tenure of 2 (two) years, at least reasons for transferring a person has to be recorded and notes have to be put up and after proper approval, a person can be transferred. 5. It is averred in the present case that the petitioner was transferred 4 (four) times in a year. This act of the authorities defies the principles of reasonableness and proportionality. It is, however, submitted that the act Page No.# 4/12 of the authorities in transferring the petitioner randomly in such a manner may not be malice in fact but it is apparent that such an act is malice in law. 6. Per contra, Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Addl. A. G. laid stress in his argument that the transfer was in public interest and the transfer order dated 09.09.2025 clearly reveals that the transfer order was passed owing to existing vacancy in the Pijirang Sub-Division. It is also submitted that the petitioner was one of the senior most serving AE and owing to the vacancy in the Pijirang Sub-Division, the petitioner was transferred. 7. It is further submitted that there is no embargo that an incumbent cannot be transferred frequently. Rule 15 of the Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules (for short, ‘FRSR’) deals with the Rules on transfer and posting empowering the authorities to transfer. It is further contended that unlike the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner there were 4 continuous orders of transfer within a period of one year, is not correct, as the order dated 15.09.2025 was never acted upon. This leaves us with 3 (three) orders of transfer. It is further submitted that the transfer order dated 15.09.2025 was modified and the petitioner was posted to a place of his choice. Thus, there is no malice in law when a Senior officer is transferred bonafide to a same division. The Pijirang Sub- Division is around 50 kms from the Seppa Division. 8. The learned Addl. A. G. has relied on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.C. Saxena-vs-Union of India and Other; reported in (2006) 9 SCC 583, wherein, it has been held that: Page No.# 5/12 “6. We have perused the record with the help of the learned counsel and heard the learned counsel very patiently. We find that no case for our interference whatsoever has been made out. In the first place, a government servant cannot disobey a transfer order by not reporting at the place of posting and then go to a court to ventilate his grievances. It is his duty to first report for work where he is transferred and make a representation as to what may be his personal problems. This tendency of not reporting at the place of posting and indulging in litigation needs to be curbed. Apart therefrom, if the appellant really had some genuine difficulty in reporting for work at Tezpur, he could have reported for duty at Amritsar where he was so posted. We too decline to believe the story of his remaining sick. Assuming there was some sickness, we are not satisfied that it prevented him from joining duty either at Tezpur or at Amritsar. The medical certificate issued by Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital proves this point. In the circumstances, we too are of the opinion that the appellant was guilty of the misconduct of unauthorisedly remaining absent from duty”. 9. Relying on the decision of the S. C. Saxena (Supra), it is submitted that it was the duty of the incumbent to first join his place of posting and thereafter, to pursue with his representation but the petitioner has disobeyed the order of transfer and he has not joined his place of new posting. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner could not join his new place of posting because the petitioner was not released which has already been admitted through the affidavit filed by the respondent authorities. It is submitted that the petitioner has not disobeyed any order of transfer. 11. It is further submitted by the learned Addl. A. G. that certain guidelines are to be followed as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others-vs-S.L. ABBAS; reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357 and it has been held that:- Page No.# 6/12 “6. An order this appeal. of transfer is an incident of Government service. Fundamental Rule 11 says that "the whole time of a Government servant is at the disposal of the Government which pays him and he may be employed in any manner required by proper authority". Fundamental Rule 15 says that "the President may transfer a Government servant from one post to another". That the respondent is liable to transfer anywhere in India is not in dispute. It is not the case of the respondent that the order of his transfer is vitiated by mala fides on the part of the authority making the order, though the Tribunal does say so merely because certain guidelines issued by the Central Government are not followed, with which immediate superior shall deal who later. The respondent attributed "mischief to his immediate superior who had nothing to do with his transfer. All he says is that he should not be transferred because his wife is working at Shillong, his children are studying there and also because his health had suffered a setback some time ago. He relies upon certain executive instructions issued by the Government in that behalf. Those instructions are in the nature of guidelines. They do not have statutory force. “7.Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right”. 12. Relying on the decision of S. L. Abbas (Supra), it is submitted that there was no mala fide on the part of the respondent authorities. There was no violation of the statutory provisions and the transferring authority have every jurisdiction to transfer the petitioner in the present place of posting in the interest of public service. 13. The learned Addl. A.G. has also relied on a decision of this Court in Page No.# 7/12 the case of Er. Okom Siram-vs-State of Arunachal Pradesh; reported in 2023 (4) GLT 157, wherein, it has been held that:- “22. The third reason to challenge the impugned Transfer order is that no reasons were assigned for the Transfer. In the said context, it would be pertinent to note that this Court by order dated 26.04.2022 in WP(C) 129 (AP)/2022 had a mere requirement of the respondent no.2 to revisit the issue of Transfer of the appellant and the respondent no.3 strictly in accordance with the departmental norms and service rules without being influenced by notes, if any, circulated by any political persons whomsoever. Therefore, this Court never expressed any desire that the Transfer order that may be consequently passed should contain any reason. Therefore, there was no requirement that the respondent no.2, the post which is held by respondent no.4 should assign any reason. The learned departmental counsel has produced the relevant departmental records, which contains the computer generated note sheets, which were perused and returned. A part of the said note sheets are also annexed to the objection filed by the appellant in the connected IA(C) 1233(AP)/2022. On a conjoint reading of the said note sheet, it appears that the concerned departmental authorities, who had processed the file, had given their respective notes, which ultimately reached the respondent no.2. The said notes disclose that the normal tenure of the appellant was already completed and he was eligible for Transfer whereas the tenure of the respondent no.3 had not yet completed. Therefore, as per contents of note no.56, 57 and 58, the matter was sent for approval to the respondent no.2, the post held by respondent no.4. Consequently, the respondent no.2 made his comments in note no.61, which was further sent up to the departmental advisor, who endorsed his approval. Thereafter, the file was signed by the Deputy Chief Minister and Chief Minister. Therefore, time from 19.5.2022 to 14.6.2022 i.e. close to a month was taken by the departmental authorities to complete the process, culminating in the issuance of the impugned Transfer order. “23. Therefore, we find that the learned Single Judge had rightly held that it could be seen from the relevant note sheet that the competent authority had proposed the Transfer of the parties concern for ensuing better administration. Hence, we approve of the finding by the learned Single Judge that admittedly, good administration co-relates to public interest which is one of the essential Page No.# 8/12 features in making a decision on Transfer or posting. We cannot find any error committed by the Single Judge by following the case of (1) State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402; (2) National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sh. Bhagwan & Anr., (2001) & SCC 574; (3) State Bank of India Vs. Anjan Sanyal & Ors., (2001) 5 SCC 508; (4) Union of India Vs. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357; (5) Abdur Rahim SK Vs. State of Assam & Ors., 2017 (2) GLT 20; and (6) Redam Jini Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh, (2011) 2 GLR 539”. 14. Relying on the decision of Er. Okom Siram (Supra), it is submitted by the learned Addl. A.G. that in case of public interest, no reasons for transfer are required. 15. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner laid stress in his argument that when the policy guidelines have been circumvented, the reasons are required to be shown. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Duken Kato-vs-State of Arunachal Pradesh & Other; reported in 2024 (1) GLT 1, wherein, it has been held that:- “11. The Hon'ble Apex court while dealing with decision of transfer order of a judicial officer issued by the Full Court of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ms. X Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 171 also extensively dealt with concept of malafide exercise of power relating to order of transfer. At paragraph 58 the Hon'ble Apex court held that the State is under the obligation to act fairly without ill will or malice-in fact or law. It further went to hold that 'legal malice' or malice in law means something done without lawful excuse. It is an act done wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite. It was further held that when an order is not based on any factor germane for passing an order for transfer and the order is based on an irrelevant ground, such an order would not be sustainable in law. Page No.# 9/12 “12. The transfer policies and guidelines are formulated to_regulate the policy of the Government / employer. Such policy generally includes the tenure of posting, the different conditions of transfer etc., which are formulated on the basis of the need of the department. Therefore, such policies and guidelines are judicially declared to have not created any enforceable right upon an employee. The Honble Apex court in the case of Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh (supra) dealing with a transfer policy of Madhya Pradesh High Court and recognizing the principle that the transfer policies and the guidelines are not having any enforceable right, relying on earlier decisions of the Honble Apex court held that though mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right but failure to consider and to give due weightage to it may render the decision arbitrary. It was further held that requirement of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness which is a necessary concomitant of rule of law. Finally, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that though transfer policy may not be enforceable in law but when such transfer policy has been framed, every officers will have a legitimate expectation that such a policy should be given due weightage, when cases of transfer of officer are being considered. “21. In the facts of the present case, it is very clear that the initial order of transfer of the appellant was issued citing definite reason though on the basis of a representation inasmuch as the transfer policy allows such course of action. However, while issuing the impugned transfer order, the same was done without even any proposal being initiated by the administrative department, and rather the record reflects that transfer of respondent No. 5 was initiated on the basis of a request by the Advisor to the Minister of PWD inasmuch as such course of action is debarred under the transfer policy. Thus, the transfer order impugned is not based on any factor germane for taking recourse to such a course of action. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this court the impugned transfer order is hit by the principle of malice in law. In view of aforesaid determination, this court holds that the impugned order of transfer is bad for the reason of being issued in exercise malafide and arbitrary exercise of power. However, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate such facts and principles of law while refusing to interfere with the impugned order. “22. From the aforesaid facts as discussed above and from the record, it is Page No.# 10/12 crystal clear that the proposal of the transfer of respondent was initiated on the basis of request/U.O. Note of the Advisor to the Minister of PWD. The record further reveals that no proposal was in fact initiated by the administrative department relating to the transfer of the appellant, however, suddenly he was transferred only by placing the respondent No. 5., in his place inasmuch as the fact remains that the petitioner was earlier transferred considering his he has not completed the tenure in the said place of posting. “25. Yet another aspect of the matter is that the transfer policy as discussed hereinabove, was formulated to regulate the transfers of government employee in Education department of the State of Arunachal Pradesh, which covers all administrative cadres including Principal and Director etc. Such policy included the tenure of posting as 5 years and also includes different condition/considerations of transfer including hard posting etc. In the case of Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh (supra), it was held that though such policy and guidelines do not create any enforceable right, however, the employees shall have legitimate expectation for proper implementation of such policy and that though such legitimate expectation is not by itself is a distinct and enforceable right however, failure to consider and to give due weightage to it may render the decision to be arbitrary. In the considered opinion of this Court, in the given facts of the present case the above decision squarely covers the controversy at hand inasmuch as the appellant was transferred and posted after giving due weightage to his request including his date of superannuation, however, while transferring back, as reflected in the record no considerations, under the transfer policy was made nor any exigencies of services are discernible for such exercise of power and therefore, such exercise of power is nothing but an arbitrary exercise of power. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Poonam Verma Vs. Delhi Development Authority reported in (2007) 13 SCC 154 also had expressed the view that though the transfer guidelines are advisory in nature, however, same can be judicially reviewed when deviation of such transfer policy involves arbitrariness or discrimination”. 17. Relying on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Duken Kato (Supra), it is submitted that the petitioner was having a legitimate expectation to continue in his place of posting. Although, transfer policy Page No.# 11/12 may not be enforceable in law but when such transfer policy has been framed, every officer will have a legitimate expectation, when cases of transfer of officers are being considered. In the absence of any proposal or approval and/ or reasons recorded, it appears to be arbitrary and such an act suffers from malice in law. Now, the question falls for consideration is whether the transfer order of the petitioner is liable to be set aside and quashed. It is submitted that a transfer order on trivial ground if set aside will open floodgates and will have a cascading effect. 18. In the wake of the foregoing discussions, it is clear that 4 (four) transfer orders have been issued to the petitioner within a year. It is true that the order dated 15.10.2024 may not have been acted upon and the second order dated 01.01.2025 might have been modified to the convenience of the petitioner. If the 2nd place of posting was according to the convenience of the petitioner, then the 2 (two) transfer orders have prejudiced the petitioner. The 2 (two) transfers within a year may appear to be arbitrary, moreso, when the guidelines of transfer policy of the State, have not been followed. 19. In view of the above discussions, this Court finds that this is a fit case, wherein, the transfer order dated 15.09.2025 may be set aside and quashed. Accordingly, the impugned transfer order dated 15.09.2025 (Annexure-1) is hereby set aside and quashed. 20. This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. 21. No order as to cost(s). Page No.# 12/12 JUDGE Comparing Assistant