Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010225702018 2026:GAU-AS:8868 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7242/2018 PIJUSH KANTI PALIT SON OF LATE KANAI LAL PALIT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SODAGRAM DHOLAI BAZAR, P.O.- DHOLAI BAZAR, P.S. DHOLAI, DISTRICT- CACHAR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 6 2:THE CHIEF CONTROLLER VILLAGE DEFENCE ORGANIZATION ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 7. 3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CACHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788110 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE NAGAON DISTRICT- NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782001. 5:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE Page No.# 2/8 DHOLAI POLICE STATION SILCHAR CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788114 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J I BORBHUIYA, MS F BEGUM,MR. L MOHAN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 19.06.2026 Heard Mr. J. I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. C. Chutia, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents. 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned transfer order dated 28.08.2018 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Cachar, whereby he has been transferred from Dholai Police Station Cachar District to Nagaon District. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was appointed as Circle Organizer, Village Defence Organization in the year 1989, upon joining service on 27.12.1989 vide order dated 02.01.1990 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Cachar, Silchar, he was posted at Lakhipur P.S. Thereafter, he was performing his duties at Dholai Police Station in the district of Cachar, Assam. 4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that while he was servicing Page No.# 3/8 as Circle Organizer at Dholai police station, the respondent No. 3 on 28.08.2018 issued an order, whereby he has been transferred from Cachar district to Nagaon district in the name of public interest. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that the respondent No. 3 has issued the impugned transfer order by exercising colourable exercise of power not conferred upon it, as for appointment of the candidate as Circle Organizer, the person must be the native of the concerned district, wherein the persons outside the concerned district are not allowed to be appointed as Circle Organizer of the said district. Situated thus, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. This Court while issuing notice on 30.10.2018, suspended the impugned transfer order dated 28.08.2018 till the returnable date, which is continuing till date. 6. Mr. J. I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the impugned transfer is totally without jurisdiction and has been acted with malafide intention. He further submits that under the provision of the Assam Village Defence Organization Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1966”) and Assam Village Defence Organization Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1986”), there is a ban for transferring the Circle Organizer outside his native district. 7. Per contra, Mr. T. C. Chutia, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents, submits that the transfer has been issued in public interest and in view of administrative exigencies, and therefore, does not warrant interference by this Court. He further contends that the impugned transfer order has been issued by the Page No.# 4/8 Chief Controller, Village Defence Organization, Assam, who exercises administrative control over the entire organization and is the competent authority to effect transfers of Circle Organizers within the State. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order is neither without jurisdiction nor vitiated by any illegality warranting judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the material available on record. I have also considered the case laws cited at the bar. 9. Since the primary contention raised in the instant writ petition is whether there is any ban for transferring a Circle Organizer of a particular district of which he is a native to another district within the state, let me first turn to the relevant provisions in this regard. 10. Section 11 of the Act of 1966 reads as under: “11. Appointment of Circle Organiser, Village De-fence Organisation :- a) The appointment of Circle Organiser shall be made by the District Village Defence Officer who shall be the appointing and Controlling Authority. b) The educational qualification for the post of On Circle Organiser, Village Defence Organisa-tion, shall be Matriculate. This may how-ever be relaxed in the case of a candidate having special qualification in special works who has distinguished himself by sincere and devoted service to the Village Defence Organisation or who by his position and status inspires confidence in the mind of the public. Prior approval shall be obtai- ned from the Chief Controller, Village De-fence Organisation for Page No.# 5/8 appointment of such educationally underqualified persons. The candidate must be a citizen of India and native of the District. The age limit shall not be less than 18 (Eighteen) years and more than 30 (Thirty) years on the date of appointment. The upper age limit shall however be relaxed upto 35 (Thirtyfive) years in case of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes and Ex-Servicemen. The selected candidate must be found fit on medical examination and Police verification.” 11. Rule 11 of Chapter III of the Rules of 1986 reads as under: “11. Appointment of Circle Organiser, Village Defence Organisation:- a) The appointment of Circle Organiser shall be made by the District Village Defence Officer who shall be the appointing and Controlling Authority. (b) The educational qualification for the post of Circle Organiser, Village Defence Organi-sation, shall be Marticulate. This may however be relaxed in the case of a candi-date having special qualification in special works who has distinguished himsalf by sincere and devoted service to the Village Defence Organisation or who by his posi-tion and status inspires confidence in the mind of the public Prior approval shall be obtained from the Chief Controller, Village Defence Organisation for appoint-ment of such educationally underqualifled persons. The candidate must be a citizen of India and native of the District The age limt shall not be less than 18 (Eighteen) years and more than 30 (Thirty) years on the date of appointment. The upper age limit shall however be relaxed upto 35 (Thirty five) years in case of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes and Ex-Servicement. The selected candidate must be found fit on medical examination and Police verification. Page No.# 6/8 12. A plain reading of Section 11 of the Act of 1966 and Rule 11 of the Rules of 1986 reveals that one of the eligibility conditions for appointment to the post of Circle Organizer is that the candidate must be a native of the district concerned. The requirement is thus relatable to the stage of recruitment and appointment. 13. The issue arising in the present case, however, is not one of appointment but of transfer after appointment. The question that falls for consideration is whether a Circle Organiser, who was appointed in a district of which he is a native, can subsequently be transferred to another district within the State. 14. The impugned order dated 28.08.2018 discloses that the petitioner was transferred by the Chief Controller, Village Defence Organization, Assam, from Cachar District to Nagaon District in the same capacity in the interest of public service. The transfer does not alter the petitioner’s status, rank, pay, or service conditions; it merely changes his place of posting. 15. The stand of the respondents, as reflected in paragraph 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition, is that while nativity of the district is a prerequisite for appointment as Circle Organizer, neither the Act of 1966 nor the Rules of 1986 contain any provision prohibiting transfer of a Circle Organizer outside his home district. It has further been stated that the Chief Controller exercises supervisory and administrative control over the entire Village Defence Organization in the State and, in the exigencies of administration, is competent to order such transfers. Page No.# 7/8 16. This Court finds considerable force in the aforesaid contention. The requirement that a candidate must be a native of the district is a condition governing eligibility for appointment. Such a stipulation cannot, in the absence of an express statutory provision, be construed as creating a permanent embargo against transfer outside the district after appointment. Had the legislature intended to restrict the service of a Circle Organizer exclusively to his native district throughout his tenure, an express provision to that effect would have found place in the statute or the rules framed thereunder. 17. Significantly, the petitioner has not been able to point out any provision of the Act of 1966 or the Rules of 1986 which either expressly prohibits inter-district transfers or restricts the authority of the Chief Controller to effect such transfers. Admittedly, the post of Circle Organizer is a transferable post. Once the post itself is transferable and no statutory prohibition against inter-district transfer has been shown, this Court finds no merit in the contention that the petitioner could not have been transferred outside his native district. The overall control, supervision and administration of the Organization being vested in the Chief Controller, the impugned order cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. 18. The plea of mala fide is equally devoid of merit. Apart from making a bald allegation, no material particulars have been pleaded or placed on record to demonstrate that the impugned transfer order was actuated by mala fides or was issued for any collateral purpose. It is well settled that allegations of mala fide must be pleaded with full particulars and established by cogent material, which is conspicuously Page No.# 8/8 absent in the present case. 19. It is also pertinent to note that immediately upon issuance of the transfer order, the petitioner approached this Court and obtained an interim order staying the transfer. Consequently, he has continued at his original place of posting throughout the pendency of the proceedings. The Apex Court in S.C. Saxena v. Union of India, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 583, has deprecated the practice of government servants avoiding compliance with transfer orders and directly resorting to litigation without first joining at the transferred place of posting. 20. Transfer is an incidence of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be vitiated by mala fides, issued by an authority lacking jurisdiction, or passed in violation of any statutory provision, judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution remains extremely limited. In the present case, none of these grounds stands established. This Court, therefore, finds no reason to interfere with the impugned transfer order. 21. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 22. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. 23. No order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant