Page No.# 1/13 GAHC040004892026 2026:GAU-AP:618 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/153/2026 Bijoy Pertin Son of Shri Dana Pertin, resident of Pasighat, PO and PS Pasighat, Est Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh, currently posted at DFCSO, Pasihgat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 3 Ors through 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 Page No.# 2/13 Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh 79210 Advocate for the Petitioner : F.I. Choudhury; Muk Pertin, Senior Advocate, Dakjum Riba,Mukbang Pertin,Takom Pabin,Tshering Yangzom Bhutia, Mukbom Pertin,Rimo Riba,Karyom Dabi Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP); D. Panging, Sr. Adv.; Abanso Gamre,B Padung,Vijay Jamoh: Tagum Jamoh SC (Food and Civil Supplies Department) B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A Date of pronouncement of judgment : 22.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment : No Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced : Yes JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral) Heard Mr. F. I. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. K. Wangmo, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No. 1; Mr. T. Jamoh, learned Standing Counsel, Food and Civil Supplies Department for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and Mr. D. Panging, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. V. Jamoh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.03.2026, issued vide E-File No. DFCS-11011/33/2022 by the Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, whereby the Page No.# 3/13 petitioner, who is serving as District Food and Civil Supplies Officer (DFCSO), Pasighat, East Siang District, has been transferred to Roing and in his place, the respondent No. 4, namely, Shri Dana Yirang, who is a Sub-Divisional Food and Civil Supplies Officer (SDFCSO) and functioning as In-charge DFCSO, has been posted at Pasighat, on the ground that the same has been issued only to accommodate the respondent No. 4. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is a regular District Food and Civil Supplies Officer belonging to Group-'A' cadre and is presently serving as DFCSO, Pasighat. According to the petitioner, he has been discharging his duties with utmost sincerity and diligence in the interest of public service. It is his case that the respondent No. 4 belongs to Group-'B' cadre and holds the substantive post of SDFCSO and, therefore, a regular Group-'A' Officer cannot be replaced by a Group-'B' Officer to hold charge of the higher post. 4. Mr. F. I. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that though a SDFCSO may be allowed to hold charge of the post of DFCSO to meet administrative exigencies, a regular Group-'A' Officer, particularly the senior- most officer in the cadre, cannot be displaced by a Group-'B' Officer holding charge of the higher post. He submits that the petitioner is the senior-most DFCSO in the cadre after the retirement of one Shri S. Chakraborty and, therefore, the impugned transfer order replacing the petitioner by the respondent No. 4, who is substantively an SDFCSO, is arbitrary and contrary to the service hierarchy. 5. Mr. Choudhury, learned Counsel, submits that the impugned transfer order has been issued only to accommodate the respondent No. 4 and not in public interest. He submits that the respondent No. 4 had sought transfer from Anini to Page No.# 4/13 Pasighat on medical grounds and had also obtained recommendations from the Hon'ble Member of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly through U.O. Notes. According to the learned Counsel, the transfer was effected solely to facilitate the posting of the respondent No. 4 at Pasighat on personal grounds and not on account of any administrative exigency or in furtherance of public interest. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner, upon obtaining documents under the Right to Information Act, 2005, has come across the Standing Order dated 07.07.2023 issued by the Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, wherein it has been specifically provided that an SDFCSO posted as In-charge DFCSO shall not claim further posting against a post held by a regular District Food and Civil Supplies Officer. He submits that despite the aforesaid Standing Order, the respondent No. 4, who is an SDFCSO and functioning as In-charge DFCSO, has been posted against the post occupied by the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the departmental Standing Order. 7. Mr. Choudhury, learned Counsel, further submits that the file notings obtained under the Right to Information Act reveal that the authorities themselves had observed that since Pasighat is a sanctioned post of DFCSO and a regular DFCSO is already posted there, it would not be appropriate to replace him by a junior officer in the rank of SDFCSO and had suggested that the respondent No. 4 may be posted as SDFCSO under the petitioner or be accommodated elsewhere. He submits that despite such noting, the respondent authorities have issued the impugned order showing it to be in the interest of public service, whereas the record itself reveals that the transfer was sought on medical grounds and on the basis of recommendations made by political Page No.# 5/13 functionaries. 8. In support of his submissions, Mr. Choudhury, learned Counsel, has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Shri Niapung Konia vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Others [WP(C) No. 257(AP)/2016], wherein this Court held that in a case of inter se transfer, the transfer has to be effected amongst members belonging to the same cadre and that an officer holding only additional or functional charge of a higher post cannot replace an officer holding the substantive post. It was held that an Assistant Engineer, who was merely allowed to hold the charge of Executive Engineer on a stop-gap basis in his own scale of pay, could not be transferred to the post of Executive Engineer so as to replace a regular Executive Engineer and accordingly the transfer order was set aside as being vitiated by a fundamental error. 9. Learned Counsel has further relied upon the decision of this Court in Hibu Tama vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2021) 1 GLR 449, wherein this Court, following the ratio laid down in Niapung Konia (supra), held that there cannot be an inter se transfer between officers who are not similarly placed in the Department. In the said case, the petitioner, who was functioning as Superintending Engineer and enjoying the pay, status and position attached to the post, was sought to be replaced by an Executive Engineer who had merely been permitted to look after the charge of Superintending Engineer on a temporary basis in his own scale of pay. This Court held that the two officers were not similarly situated and that such an inter se transfer was impermissible in law. 10. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of this Court in Er. Kipa Rinia vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh & 4 Ors. [WP(C) No. 202(AP)/2018], wherein the Court held that although transfer is an incident Page No.# 6/13 of service, the power of transfer has to be exercised bona fide, reasonably and in public interest. It was further held that a transfer made not in administrative exigency but with the object of accommodating another person for undisclosed reasons amounts to mala fide and colourable exercise of power. In the said case, the Court found that the transfer order had been issued on extraneous considerations and merely to accommodate another officer and, accordingly, quashed the same. 11. Mr. Choudhury, learned Counsel, submits that it is now well settled that there cannot be an inter se transfer between officers who are not similarly placed in the Department and that a regular officer holding a higher substantive post cannot be displaced by a junior officer belonging to a lower cadre who is merely holding charge of the higher post. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the impugned order dated 19.03.2026 is arbitrary, contrary to the settled principles laid down by this Court and is liable to be set aside and quashed. 12. On the other hand, Mr. T. Jamoh, learned Standing Counsel, Food and Civil Supplies Department appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3, submits that transfer and posting of Government servants is an incident of service and the petitioner has no vested right to continue at Pasighat. He submits that the petitioner has been serving at Pasighat since June, 2014 and has completed more than 12 years at the same place and, therefore, his transfer was long overdue. 13. Mr. Jamoh, learned Standing Counsel, submits that the records reveal that the respondent No. 4 had submitted a representation dated 20.11.2024 seeking transfer from Anini on account of his diabetic illness, the 100% cerebral palsy suffered by his son and the advanced age and medical condition of his mother. Page No.# 7/13 He submits that the said representation was processed by the Department and various levels of officers examined the issue. It is submitted that though certain recommendations were received from the Hon'ble Members of Legislative Assembly and the Hon'ble Member of Parliament, the same by themselves did not form the basis of the transfer and the final decision was taken by the Government after taking into consideration all relevant aspects. 14. It is further submitted that various alternatives were examined at different levels in the Department and opinions were expressed in the file notings, however, such notings are merely part of the decision-making process and do not confer any enforceable right upon the petitioner. Ultimately, considering that the respondent No. 4 had been serving as In-charge DFCSO, Anini since September, 2021 and that the petitioner had been serving as DFCSO, Pasighat since June, 2014, the competent authority found their transfer and posting to be overdue and accordingly approved the transfer order. 15. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that there are several SDFCSOs functioning as In-charge DFCSOs in the State and that the impugned order does not adversely affect the rank, status or emoluments of the petitioner, who continues to hold the substantive post of DFCSO at Roing. 16. According to the learned Standing Counsel, no mala fide or violation of any statutory provision has been established and, therefore, no interference with the impugned order is warranted. 17. Mr. D. Panging, learned Senior Counsel, for the respondent No. 4, submits that the respondent No. 4 was promoted to the post of SDFCSO on 27.09.2011 and in terms of the applicable Recruitment Rules, the post of SDFCSO is the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of DFCSO. He submits that the Page No.# 8/13 respondent No. 4 had completed the requisite qualifying service for promotion to the post of DFCSO long ago, however, despite existence of substantive vacancies, no regular Departmental Promotion Committee has been held and, therefore, the respondent No. 4 has been serving as In-charge DFCSO since 16.08.2021. 18. Mr. Panging, learned Senior Counsel, submits that out of the 31 sanctioned posts of DFCSO in the State, as many as 19 posts are being manned by officers functioning as In-charge DFCSO and, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No. 4, being substantively an SDFCSO, could not have been posted as In-charge DFCSO at Pasighat is misconceived. He submits that had regular promotions been undertaken in accordance with the Government guidelines, the respondent No. 4 would have been promoted to the rank of DFCSO. 19. Mr. Panging, learned Senior Counsel, submits that though two U.O. Notes were issued by the Hon'ble Member of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly recommending the transfer of the respondent No. 4, the transfer was not effected on the basis of the said recommendations but on account of the medical condition and family problems of the respondent No. 4 as disclosed in his representation dated 20.11.2024. He submits that merely because certain U.O. Notes were issued by public representatives, the same by itself would not vitiate the transfer order and no inference of mala fide can be drawn therefrom. 20. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 4 further submits that the petitioner has been serving at Pasighat for the last 12 years and his transfer was long overdue. He submits that it has been consistently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court that no Government servant has a vested right to remain posted at a particular place and prolonged stay at one Page No.# 9/13 station may give rise to vested interests. He further submits that the petitioner has already been relieved from Pasighat on 12.05.2026 and has joined at Roing on 19.05.2026, whereas the respondent No. 4 has been relieved from Anini on 23.04.2026 and joined at Pasighat on 28.04.2026 and both the officers are presently serving at their respective places of posting. 21. Mr. Panging, learned Senior Counsel, also submits that though the petitioner has alleged that the transfer order was issued at the instance of political functionaries, neither the Hon'ble Member of Parliament nor the Members of Legislative Assembly, whose recommendations are sought to be relied upon by the petitioner, have been impleaded as party respondents in the present proceedings. He submits that in the absence of the concerned persons against whom allegations are made being impleaded as parties, the plea of mala fide is not maintainable and on this ground alone the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 22. Accordingly, Mr. Panging, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the petitioner has failed to establish any mala fide or violation of any statutory provision and, therefore, the impugned transfer order dated 19.03.2026 warrants no interference by this Court. 23. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 24. Admittedly, the petitioner is a regular District Food and Civil Supplies Officer belonging to Group-'A' cadre and is presently posted as DFCSO, Roing pursuant to the impugned transfer order dated 19.03.2026. It is also not in dispute that the respondent No. 4 is substantively a SDFCSO belonging to Group-'B' cadre and has been functioning as In-charge DFCSO since September, 2021. Page No.# 10/13 25. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that a regular Group-'A' officer cannot be replaced by a Group-'B' officer holding charge of the higher post and that the impugned order dated 19.03.2026 has been issued only to accommodate the respondent No. 4. It is also contended that the transfer is actuated by extraneous considerations and political recommendations and is contrary to the Standing Order dated 07.07.2023 issued by the Department. 26. From perusal of the records, it appears that respondent No. 4 had submitted a representation seeking transfer from Anini to Pasighat on account of his diabetic condition, the 100% cerebral palsy suffered by his son and the ailments of his aged mother. The records further reveal that by Note No. 43 dated 10.02.2026, the matter was re-processed and the representation of respondent No. 4 along with the U.O. Notes and supporting medical documents were placed before the authority for consideration. It appears that recommendations from certain Hon'ble Members of Legislative Assembly and the Hon'ble Member of Parliament were also placed before the Department. However, the records reveal that the matter was examined at different levels and various alternatives were considered before the proposal was finally approved by the competent authority. 27. It is true that at one stage, it was observed that since Pasighat is a sanctioned post of DFCSO and a regular DFCSO was already posted there, replacing him by a junior officer in the rank of SDFCSO may not be appropriate and alternative postings were suggested. However, such note sheets merely form part of the decision-making process and do not constitute the final decision of the Government. It is well settled that opinions expressed in the note sheets are merely part of the decision-making process and do not by themselves Page No.# 11/13 constitute a decision of the Government. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim any enforceable right on the basis of the observations. 28. The records further show that the competent authority took note of the fact that respondent No. 4 had been functioning as In-charge DFCSO since September, 2021 and that the petitioner had been continuously serving at Pasighat since June, 2014. Taking into account the long stay of the petitioner at one station and the medical and family circumstances of respondent No. 4, the transfer and posting order was approved. It is also not in dispute that respondent No. 4 was relieved from Anini on 23.04.2026 and joined at Pasighat on 28.04.2026, whereas the petitioner was relieved from Pasighat on 12.05.2026 and joined as DFCSO, Roing on 19.05.2026. 29. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in Niapung Konia (supra), Hibu Tama (supra) and Er. Kipa Rinia (supra), wherein this Court interfered with the impugned transfer orders having found, on the facts of those cases, that inter se transfers between officers who were not similarly placed in the service hierarchy were impermissible and, in the case of Er. Kipa Rinia (supra), that the transfer order had been issued merely to accommodate the private respondent and not in public interest. There can be no quarrel with the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions. However, the principle that there cannot ordinarily be an inter se transfer between officers who are not similarly situated is not absolute and its applicability would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 30. In Er. Taban Tabing vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh & 2 Ors., WA No. 21(AP)/2025, decided on 19.06.2025, the Division Bench of this Court held that although ordinarily it may not be permissible to make inter se transfers between officers who are not similarly placed in the Department, there would Page No.# 12/13 not be a complete bar to transfer and posting of officers serving on in-charge, officiating or functional basis, provided that no prejudice is caused to the rank, status, service conditions or career prospects of the transferred officer and the transfer is necessitated by administrative exigencies. The Division Bench further reiterated the settled principle that the scope of judicial review in matters of transfer to an equivalent post without any adverse consequence is extremely limited and interference is warranted only on the grounds of mala fides or violation of any statutory provision. 31. In the present case, the petitioner continues to hold the substantive post of DFCSO and is presently serving as DFCSO, Roing. Nothing has been brought on record to show that his rank, status, pay, emoluments or promotional prospects have been adversely affected. Therefore, merely because respondent No. 4, whose substantive post is that of SDFCSO, has been posted as In-charge DFCSO at Pasighat, the same by itself cannot render the impugned order illegal.The Standing Order dated 07.07.2023 relied upon by the petitioner is only an executive instruction and, in the facts of the present case, cannot be construed as creating an absolute prohibition against such transfer and posting. More so, the petitioner had been serving at Pasighat since June, 2014 and his transfer cannot be said to be premature or arbitrary. 32. So far as the allegation that the transfer was made on the basis of political recommendations is concerned, merely because U.O. Notes issued by public representatives formed part of the records, the same by itself cannot lead to an inference that the transfer was actuated by mala fides or extraneous considerations. A profitable reference may be made to the case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad vs. State of U.P., reported in (2007) 8 SCC 150, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to several earlier decisions has, Page No.# 13/13 reiterated that interference with transfer orders should be made only in very rare cases. It held that even if a transfer has been made on the recommendation of an MLA, the same by itself would not vitiate the transfer order and there can be no hard and fast rule that every transfer made on the recommendation of an MP or MLA would be illegal. It was observed that it would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. 33. In the present case, apart from the recommendations relied upon by the petitioner, no material has been placed before this Court to establish malice in fact or malice in law. On the contrary, the records show that the request made by respondent No. 4 was independently processed and examined by the Department before the competent authority took a final decision. 34. In view of the settled position of law and in the absence of any proven mala fide or violation of any statutory provision, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 19.03.2026. 35. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs. JUDGE Victoria Comparing Assistant