Page No.# 1/27 GAHC040007072026 2026:GAU-AP:669 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/221/2026 Mori Riba Son of Late Tamo Riba, presently serving as Divisional Forest Officer, Banderdewa, Forest Division, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 2 Ors represented by the Chief Secretary cum Principal Secretary, Department of EF and CC, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Principal Chief Conservator o Forest and Head of Forest Force Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:Taba Teni Age: 0 Occupation : presently serving as Assistant Conservator of Forest Office of the Divisional Forest Office Social Forestry FD Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Rintu Saikia, Sr. Adv, Idak Bam,Muchi Mele,Mindo Taso,K Bam,Ligam Nochi Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Nani Kuru,Oken Duggong,Atong Nangu,Phunai Wangpan,Baby Palon,Kirpi Nyorak,Duge Soki,Nikita Danggen Page No.# 2/27 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE Date on which judgment is reserved : 29.06.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 22.07.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment : No Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced : Yes JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Heard Mr. R. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. I. Bam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondents and Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. 2. The challenge made in this writ petition is to the transfer and posting order dated 28.04.2026, issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Head of Forest Force, Department of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (in short PCCF & HoFF, E, F & CC Dept.) Government of Arunachal Pradesh, whereby the petitioner, who was serving as Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Banderdewa Forest Division, has been transferred and posted as Deputy Conservator of Forests (DCF) (Industries) in the Office of the PCCF, Itanagar, and Respondent No. 3, who is an Assistant Conservator of Forest (ACF) (Entry Grade) and admittedly on probation, has been posted in his place as DFO, Banderdewa Forest Division. The petitioner has also assailed the subsequent speaking order dated 12.05.2026 passed by the PCCF & HoFF, whereby, the Page No.# 3/27 representation submitted by the petitioner against the impugned transfer order, pursuant to the direction of this Court in WP(C) No.192/2026, has been rejected. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is a member of the Arunachal Pradesh Forest Service (APFS) governed by the Arunachal Pradesh Forest Service Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “the APFS Rules, 2019”) and is presently serving as DFO and in the cadre of Deputy Conservator of Forests. He states that the APFS Rules, 2019 classify the service into four grades, namely Entry Grade, Senior Grade, Selection Grade and Administrative Grade and also prescribe the cadre strength under Schedule-I. It is his case that an officer promoted to the Entry Grade remains on probation for two years under Rule 21(b) and becomes fully entitled to discharge cadre functions only upon confirmation under Rule 24. 4. The petitioner states that while serving as DFO, Mehao Wildlife Sanctuary, he was transferred to Sagalee Forest Division vide order dated 14.02.2024 and thereafter posted as DFO, Banderdewa Forest Division vide order dated 08.11.2024, pursuant to which he joined on 13.12.2024. However, by order dated 24.12.2024, the earlier order was partially modified and the petitioner was retained at Sagalee, while Shri Goba Doke, an ACF (Entry Grade) on probation, was posted as DFO, Banderdewa in his place. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 31.12.2024 contending that the transfer order was contrary to the APFS Rules, 2019, as an officer in the Entry Grade on probation could not be posted against a higher cadre duty post. As no decision was taken, he filed WP(C) No. 58/2025, wherein this Court directed consideration of his representation. Pursuant thereto, the same was rejected by a speaking order dated 21.02.2025, leading Page No.# 4/27 the petitioner to file WP(C) No. 76/2025 challenging both the transfer order dated 24.12.2024 and the rejection order. 6. The petitioner states that this Court, by judgment and order dated 19.05.2025 passed in WP(C) No.76(AP)/2025, held that the transfer order dated 24.12.2024 was legally unsustainable, primarily on the ground that an officer who was not even in the cadre of the Selection/Senior Grade and who was serving as an ACF on probation could not be permitted to hold the charge of DFO by replacing the petitioner. Consequent upon the said judgment, the respondent authorities issued an order dated 12.06.2025 permitting the petitioner to assume charge as DFO, Banderdewa Forest Division in compliance with the directions of this Court. 7. According to the petitioner, after resuming charge at Banderdewa pursuant to the judgment of this Court, he continued to discharge his duties in accordance with law. However, before completion of the normal tenure prescribed under the Government guidelines on transfer and posting, the respondent authorities issued the impugned transfer order dated 28.04.2026 transferring the petitioner from Banderdewa Forest Division and posting him as DCF (Industries), while Respondent No. 3, who had been promoted as ACF (Entry Grade) on 25.02.2026 and was still on probation, was posted as DFO, Banderdewa Forest Division. According to the petitioner, the impugned order substantially recreates the situation earlier interfered with by this Court in WP(C) No. 76(AP)/2025, despite the findings recorded therein. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that immediately after issuance of the transfer order dated 28.04.2026, he submitted a representation dated 29.04.2026 seeking review of the same on the ground that the posting of Respondent No. 3 as DFO, Banderdewa was contrary to the APFS Rules, 2019 Page No.# 5/27 and amounted to frequent and mid-term transfer in violation of the Government transfer policy. Since the representation remained undecided, he filed WP(C) No. 192/2026. By order dated 04.05.2026, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the competent authority to decide the representation by a reasoned order and to maintain status quo regarding the postings of the petitioner and Respondent No. 3 till such decision. 9. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the PCCF & HoFF passed the impugned speaking order dated 12.05.2026 rejecting the petitioner’s representation. According to the petitioner, the rejection was based only on the general principle that transfer is an incident of service and that no Government servant has a vested right to a particular posting. It is his case that the authority failed to consider the core issue, namely, whether an ACF on probation under Rule 21 of the APFS Rules, 2019 could be posted as DFO against a post allegedly earmarked for a higher cadre under the Rules and also ignored the earlier judgment of this Court in WP(C) No. 76(AP)/2025. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, being aggrieved by the impugned transfer and posting order dated 28.04.2026 as well as the speaking order dated 12.05.2026, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking appropriate reliefs. 11. Mr. R. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the impugned transfer order dated 28.04.2026 and the consequential speaking order dated 12.05.2026 are arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the APFS Rules, 2019. He submits that Respondent No. 3 was promoted as ACF on 25.02.2026 under Rule 5 of the Rules and is still on probation under Rule 21(b), and therefore cannot be treated as eligible to hold a duty post under Schedule-I without confirmation under Rule 24. According to him, despite the statutory Page No.# 6/27 scheme governing probation and confirmation, the authorities have again placed a probationary Entry Grade officer as DFO, thereby displacing the petitioner from a higher cadre post and defeating the statutory framework governing the service. 12. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the issue is substantially covered by the earlier judgment of this Court in WP(C) No. 76/2025, wherein the earlier posting of a probationary ACF as DFO, Banderdewa was interfered with. He submits that despite the said judgment and the petitioner’s restoration to the post of DFO, Banderdewa vide order dated 12.06.2025, the respondent authorities have again, within a short span, issued a similar transfer order dated 28.04.2026, thereby attempting to reintroduce an arrangement already disapproved by this Court. It is submitted that such action amount to overreaching the earlier judgment and renders the provisions under the APFS Rules, 2019 illusory. 13. Mr. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel, further submits that the petitioner has been subjected to repeated mid-term transfers within a short span without any administrative justification. He submits that after being posted to Banderdewa pursuant to the judgment of this Court, the petitioner was again transferred before completion of the normal tenure prescribed under the Government transfer guidelines dated 02.06.1998, 19.12.2008 and circular dated 18.08.2021. Though the said guidelines may not have statutory force, it is contended that they reflect the State’s policy and ought not to be departed from arbitrarily without any exceptional reason. It is also submitted that since the petitioner is due to retire in March, 2027, the impugned transfer within one year of retirement is also contrary to the said guidelines. 14. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the reasons recorded in Page No.# 7/27 the speaking order dated 12.05.2026 indicate that the transfer is based on allegations regarding the petitioner’s alleged failure to effectively prevent illegal earth cutting and encroachment in Banderdewa Forest Division. According to him, such observations are stigmatic in nature, as they attribute inefficiency and lapses in discharge of duties without any disciplinary proceedings or opportunity of hearing. It is submitted that a transfer founded on such allegations relating to conduct or efficiency ceases to be a routine administrative measure and assumes a punitive character, which is impermissible in law. 15. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of Indiareported in (2009) 2 SCC 592, wherein it has been held that though transfer is an incidence of service, the same would be vitiated if it is based on irrelevant considerations or suffers from malice in law and that a transfer order passed in lieu of punishment or on extraneous allegations not supported by any enquiry is liable to be interfered with in exercise of judicial review. Reliance is also placed upon the decision of this Court in Panpong Tangha v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors., reported in 2022 (3) GLT 241, wherein the principles laid down in Somesh Tiwari (supra) have been followed and it has been held that where a transfer order is founded on allegations touching upon misconduct or irregularities without initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the same amounts to a punitive transfer in nature and is liable to be interfered with in judicial review in absence of bona fide administrative exigency or public interest. It is contended that the ratio of the said decision squarely applies to the present case, as the impugned transfer is based on allegations of alleged dereliction of duty in forest protection measures, thereby rendering it punitive in character. 16. Learned Senior Counsel lastly submits that the impugned speaking order Page No.# 8/27 dated 12.05.2026 proceeds on wholly irrelevant considerations by observing that the petitioner cannot dictate who should succeed him, whereas the real grievance of the petitioner is not against any individual officer but against the violation of the statutory provisions governing cadre posts and probation under the APFS Rules, 2019. According to him, the respondent authority has completely misdirected itself by treating the petitioner's challenge as a personal objection against Respondent No.3 instead of examining whether the impugned posting is permissible under the statutory Rules. 17. It is, therefore, submitted that both the transfer order dated 28.04.2026 and the consequential speaking order dated 12.05.2026 are liable to be set aside being arbitrary, contrary to the APFS Rules, 2019, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and also in disregard of the earlier judgment rendered by this Court in WP(C) No.76(AP)/2025. 18. Per contra, Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State respondents, submits that the transfer and posting of the petitioner has been effected by the competent authority strictly in accordance with administrative exigencies and in public interest and the writ petition proceeds on an erroneous understanding of both facts and the applicable service law principles governing transfers within the Arunachal Pradesh Forest Service. 19. It is the categorical stand of the State respondents that transfer is an incident of service and a Government servant has no vested or enforceable right to remain posted at a particular place of his choice. It is submitted that all transfer orders are issued in the interest of efficient public administration and proper functioning of the Forest Department and judicial review in such matters is extremely limited unless mala fides, arbitrariness, or violation of statutory Page No.# 9/27 provisions is demonstrated, which is wholly absent in the present case. The petitioner, having been transferred in the normal course of service, cannot insist on continuance at a particular station or seek to substitute administrative discretion with his own preference. 20. In this regard, Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pubi Lombi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2024) 12 SCC 292, wherein the Apex Court, after referring to the earlier decisions in Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357 and N.K. Singh v. Union of India, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 98, reiterated the settled principle that transfer is an incident of service and the scope of judicial review in matters of transfer is extremely limited. It was held that, unless the transfer order is shown to be vitiated by mala fides, passed in violation of any statutory provision, or demonstrably arbitrary and detrimental to the employee, the High Court ought not to interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 21. It is submitted that obedience to lawful orders of transfer is an essential requirement of discipline in public service and any non-compliance with such orders amounts to insubordination under the applicable conduct rules. Reliance is placed on the settled legal position that a Government servant is required to first comply with the order of transfer and thereafter avail appropriate remedies in accordance with law, and cannot adopt a course of defiance. 22. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. C. Saxena v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2006) 9 SCC 583, wherein it has been held that a Government servant cannot, as a matter of right, disobey an order of transfer and thereafter seek to challenge the same Page No.# 10/27 without first complying with the order. The Court observed that a transfer order is required to be obeyed in the first instance and any grievance against it must be ventilated only after reporting at the place of posting. It was further emphasised that such conduct of non-compliance with transfer orders and resort to litigation tends to disturb administrative discipline and cannot be countenanced, as it encourages indiscipline in public service. 23. It is further submitted that the petitioner, having earlier obtained favourable orders through judicial intervention, has repeatedly failed to comply with administrative directions, thereby reflecting a pattern of conduct which is not conducive to disciplined service functioning. The State respondents submit that such conduct has administrative consequences, as it affects the smooth functioning of the department and undermines institutional discipline. The petitioner’s repeated insistence on remaining at a particular posting, despite transfer orders, is stated to be contrary to the expectations of a responsible public servant. 24. Itis submitted that serious administrative lapses were noticed during the petitioner’s tenure in the Banderdewa Forest Division, particularly relating to protection of forest resources in the Drupong Reserved Forest area, where allegations of encroachment, illegal earth cutting, and failure to take timely preventive action were reported. It is submitted that such lapses have resulted in ecological degradation and have also given rise to complaints before the National Green Tribunal. The petitioner’s service record, according to the State, is not free from blemish, and departmental proceedings on serious charges involving financial irregularities are stated to be pending, thereby raising legitimate administrative concerns regarding continuation in sensitive postings. 25. It is submitted that the impugned decision to transfer the petitioner and Page No.# 11/27 post Respondent No. 3 in his place has been taken on purely administrative considerations, having regard to the functional requirements of the division and the need for effective forest management. It is stated that Respondent No. 3, though recently promoted to the post of ACF and presently on probation, has long experience in the Forest Department in various capacities and is well acquainted with the geographical terrain and field conditions of the concerned division. It is further submitted that due to acute shortage of Indian Forest Service cadre officers in the State, several posts of DFO are being manned by officers of the Arunachal Pradesh Forest Service on an officiating or functional basis and such arrangements are necessitated by administrative exigencies and cannot, by themselves, be termed illegal or arbitrary. 26. The State respondents further clarify that the APFS Rules, 2019, do not impose any absolute embargo on posting of eligible officers against duty posts in exigent circumstances and the Rules themselves contemplate officiating arrangements where cadre officers are not available. It is submitted that transfer guidelines relied upon by the petitioner are merely administrative in nature and do not confer any enforceable legal right. It is well settled that such guidelines are meant for internal guidance of the administration and cannot override public interest or curtail the discretion of the competent authority in matters of posting and transfer. 27. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not suffered any prejudice in service conditions as a result of the impugned transfer, inasmuch as he has been posted to Itanagar, which is the State capital and is located within close proximity to his earlier place of posting. There is no change in his rank, pay scale, or service status, and the transfer is purely lateral in nature. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot claim violation of any legal or fundamental Page No.# 12/27 right. 28. It is further submitted that the representation submitted by the petitioner has been duly considered by the competent authority and rejected by a reasoned speaking order after due application of mind and therefore the allegation of non-consideration is factually incorrect. The competent authority has taken into account all relevant administrative factors and has found no merit in the petitioner’s objections. It is submitted that mere disagreement with administrative decision does not render the order arbitrary or illegal. 29. Finally, it is submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit, as no mala fides, arbitrariness, or violation of statutory provisions has been established. The transfer order is a bona fide administrative decision taken in the interest of public service and interference by this Court would adversely affect administrative discipline and forest governance in the State. It is therefore prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed and any interim protection granted be vacated. 30. Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, submits that the writ petition proceeds on a fundamental misconception of the cadre structure under the APFS Rules, 2019 as well as the nature of duty posts in the Forest Department, which are essentially functional and administrative in character. 31. It is submitted that the petitioner has no vested or indefeasible right to claim posting as DFO in any particular forest division. It is contended that the post of DFO is not a rigidly defined cadre post in the sense suggested by the petitioner but is a functional designation assigned to the head of a forest division depending upon administrative requirements. It is further submitted Page No.# 13/27 that postings and transfers are purely administrative in nature and are guided by public interest, availability of officers, and exigencies of service. She submits that there is no provision under the APFS Rules, 2019 which creates any embargo on posting of an officer on probation against a duty post and the contrary contention raised by the petitioner is misconceived and contrary to the scheme of the Rules. 32. It is specifically submitted that Schedule-I of the APFS Rules, 2019 provides that the duty post in Banderdewa Forest Division is shown as an attached post under the Additional Deputy Conservator of Forests; however, the post of Divisional Forest Officer is functionally required to be manned by an officer of the Indian Forest Service cadre as per the Cadre Strength Regulations notified under the Government of India. In this regard, reliance is placed on the Indian Forest Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Amendment Regulations, 2022 notified vide Gazette dated 09.03.2022. It is submitted that Banderdewa Forest Division is an IFS cadre post and, therefore, ordinarily required to be held by an IFS officer. However, due to acute shortage of IFS cadre officers in the State, APFS officers are posted on temporary and functional basis to ensure continuity of administration. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner, being an officer of the APFS, cannot claim any exclusive or indefeasible right to hold the said post. 33. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N. Suresh Nathan and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 584, wherein it has been held that a consistent departmental interpretation of recruitment rules, if based on a possible and reasonable construction, should not be unsettled merely because another view is also possible, as stability and certainty in service matters are essential. It is Page No.# 14/27 submitted that the said principle squarely applies to the present case, where a long-standing administrative practice of making temporary postings/functional arrangements of APFS officers against DFO posts due to shortage of IFS cadre officers has been consistently followed in exigency of service and such settled practice ought not to be interfered with in absence of any illegality or arbitrariness. 34. It is further contended that the petitioner’s contention that an officer on probation cannot be posted to a duty post is wholly untenable. The APFS Rules, 2019 do not contain any provision which prohibits a probationary officer from being assigned functional duties in the exigencies of service. Such an interpretation, as sought to be advanced by the petitioner, is stated to be a “figment of imagination” and contrary to established administrative practice. It is submitted that the State Government is empowered to make temporary and functional arrangements depending upon availability of officers and such arrangements cannot be invalidated merely on the ground of probationary status. 35. The learned counsel, referring to RTI information from the Department of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, submits that due to shortage of eligible cadre officers, officers of lower cadres have also been assigned duty posts in various forest divisions. The RTI disclosures indicate that ACF, ADCF, DCF (Selection Grade) and other officers are presently holding such posts, showing that such functional arrangements are made as a matter of administrative practice depending upon exigencies of service. It is further submitted that under the Arunachal Pradesh Forest Service Rules, 1999, a similar structure existed, and the petitioner himself, while serving as ACF, was posted as DFO, Dibang Forest Division, Roing, vide order dated Page No.# 15/27 17.08.2012. It is therefore contended that the petitioner cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate after having benefited from similar arrangements. 36. It is also contended on behalf of the respondents that the consistent administrative practice of assigning functional charge of duty posts, including DFO-level responsibilities, to officers of the APFS, finds support from the flexible scheme of the Rules, particularly when read in light of provisions such as Rule 28, which recognises that duty posts may, in appropriate cases, be held by officers outside the strict cadre allocation depending upon administrative exigencies. While Rule 28 is primarily referable to IFS officers, the underlying principle of administrative flexibility in manning duty posts lends support to the respondents’ contention that such arrangements are permissible in exigent circumstances and do not, by themselves, render the posting illegal. 37. It is submitted that the petitioner has suffered no prejudice whatsoever by the impugned transfer, inasmuch as he has been posted as DCF (Industries) in the office of the PCCF at Itanagar, which is an equivalent post in terms of rank, status, and pay. It is therefore submitted that the transfer is purely lateral in nature and does not involve any reduction in rank or alteration of service conditions. It is further stated that respondent No. 3 was released on 29.04.2026 and had duly joined, but owing to the petitioner’s refusal to hand over charge, he could take over only on 15.05.2026. 38. It is also submitted that the petitioner’s reliance on transfer guidelines is wholly misconceived, inasmuch as such guidelines are administrative in nature and do not confer any enforceable legal right. Even otherwise, the guidelines themselves contemplate that officers posted in field or work divisions may be shifted to headquarters one year prior to retirement and therefore the petitioner’s contention regarding violation of retirement proximity norms is Page No.# 16/27 incorrect and contrary to the language of the guidelines. 39. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s challenge to the impugned transfer order is based on mere apprehensions and misconceived assumptions and no legal right has been violated. The State has acted within its lawful authority in issuing the impugned transfer order in public interest, ensuring effective forest administration and optimal utilization of available human resources. 40. In support of her contention, Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2009) 15 SCC 178, to contend that a Government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place and transfer is an incident of service. It is further submitted that courts should ordinarily refrain from interfering in transfer matters unless the order is vitiated by mala fides or is in violation of statutory provisions, and that assessment of suitability or comparative merit of officers for a particular posting lies exclusively within the domain of the employer. 41. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Janardhan Debanath & Anr., reported in (2004) 4 SCC 245, to contend that transfer is an incident of service and ordinarily does not warrant interference by the Courts unless it is shown to be vitiated by mala fides or in violation of statutory provisions. It is further held that even where allegations of misconduct or undesirable conduct form the background of a transfer, the employer is not required to hold a detailed enquiry prior to effecting transfer, and the satisfaction of the competent authority based on prima facie material is sufficient to justify administrative action in public interest or exigency of service. Page No.# 17/27 42. In view of the above, it is submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit, as the petitioner has failed to establish any violation of statutory provisions, mala fides, or arbitrariness. It is therefore prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 43. Rejoining his submissions, Mr. R. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has rendered more than thirty years of service in the Forest Department and has discharged his duties with diligence. The allegations now sought to be relied upon by the respondents regarding the petitioner's performance are denied as baseless. Learned Senior Counsel submits that if the respondents were of the view that the petitioner had committed any misconduct or indiscipline, it was always open to the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law. However, the respondents could not resort to a transfer founded on such allegations. 44. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that although a departmental charge- sheet had earlier been issued to the petitioner, the same is being contested and the petitioner has denied all the allegations contained therein. According to him, the pendency of such proceedings cannot furnish justification for the impugned transfer. 45. It is contended that the petitioner's representation against the impugned transfer was rejected without proper application of mind and without examining the principal grievance raised therein. Learned Senior Counsel reiterates that the impugned transfer is contrary to the APFS Rules, 2019 as well as the Government transfer guidelines and is liable to be interfered with. 46. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also carefully perused the materials on record. Page No.# 18/27 47. The issue which arises for determination in the present writ petition essentially relates to the legality of the transfer and posting of the petitioner from the post of DFO, Banderdewa Forest Division to the office of DCF (Industries), Itanagar and the consequential posting of Respondent No. 3, an ACF (Entry Grade) admittedly on probation, as DFO, Banderdewa Forest Division. 48. In the present case, the principal contention of the petitioner is that the post of DFO, Banderdewa Forest Division, under the scheme of the APFS, 2019, is required to be manned by officers belonging to a higher cadre, namely Senior/Selection Grade and that an ACF in the Entry Grade, who is still under probation, is not eligible to be posted against the said duty post. 49. In order to appreciate the said contention, it is necessary to refer to the relevant statutory provisions of the APFS Rules, 2019. ““...3. Constitution of service and its classification: (1) There shall be constituted a State Forests Service to be known as Arunachal Pradesh Forest Service. (2) The service shall have the following 4(four) grades namely:- (a) Entry Grade (b) Senior Grade (c) Selection Grade (d) Administrative Grade (3) The posts specified in all Grades shall be State Civil Services Group-"A" (Gazetted) posts. (AUTHORISED PERMANENT STRENGTH OF THE POSTS) 4.Strength of the Service: The authorised permanent strength of the service and the posts includedtherein shall be as specified in Schedule-I. Page No.# 19/27 (i). The number of posts in Senior Grade of the service shall be 30% of the duty postsinclusive of Deputation Reserve, Training Reserve and Leave Reserve. (ii). The number of posts in Selection Grade of the service shall be 20% of the duty posts inclusive of Deputation Reserve, Training Reserve and LeaveReservementioned in Schedule-I. (iii). The strength of the posts in the 'Administrative Grade' shall be as specified in Schedule-I. (However, this strength should not exceed 15% of the duty posts, inclusive of DeputationReserve, Training Reserve and Leave Reserve). (iv). Subject to such conditions and limitations as may bespecified by the Government, duty posts for such period by order may be created. (v). The Government may, in consultation with the Commission, include in the service, any posts other than those included in the said schedule. (vi). The Government may, in consultation with the Commission, appoint to the service the regular incumbent of such post which has boon included in the service to permanent or temporary capacity, as may be deemed fit. The suitability of such officers for appointment shall be assessed by the Departmental Promotion Committeeconstitutedunder Rule-14. (vii). Notwithstanding, anything contained in sub-rule (iv) and (v) of these Rules, in case any regular Incumbent of such post which has been included in the service under sub-rule (v) is not found suitable for appointment to the service under sub-rule (vi), he will continue to hold the post and for the purpose, the post will be treated to have been excluded from the service till it is held by such incumbent. Such person may bereconsidered by the Committee at appropriate occasions. 21. Period of probation: (1) Every person appointed under Rule-5 or Rule-16 to the Arunachal Pradesh Forest Service Entry the service, shall be on probation as below:- (a) Officers appointed to the service by direct recruitment shall be on probation for a period of 3 years i.e. 2 years for training in the State Forests Service Course and 1 year for on the job training in the Department. (b) Officers appointed to the service by promotion from Range Forest Officer will be on probation for a period of 2 years. (2) The Government may In the case of any person for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend or reduce the period of probation. (3) A probationer who has no lien on any post under the Central Government or any State Government shall be liable to be discharged from the service at any time without any notice Page No.# 20/27 if; (a) On the basis of his/her performance or conduct during probation, he/she is considered unfit for further retention in the service, or (b) If on the receipt of any information relating to his nationality, age, health or antecedents, the Appointing Authority is satisfied that he/she is ineligible or otherwise unfit for being a member of the service. (4) A probationer, who holds a lien on a post under the Central Government or any State Government may be reverted to such a substantive post at any time in any of the circumstance specified in sub- rule (3) (a) (b). (5) A probationer who is not considered suitable for confirmation at the end of the period of probation in sub-rule (1) or at the end of extended period of probation, if any under sub-rule b-rule (2), shall be discharged or reverted in accordance with sub-rule (3) or sub-rule (4), as the case may be. 24. Confirmation in service: A person who has been declared to have satisfactorily completed his/her probation period may be confirmed in the service by the Departmental Confirmation Committee prescribed at Rule-14. 25. Selection for officiating appointment: If at any time the Government is of the opinion that the number of officers available in the list referred to in sub-rule (7) of Rule-15 for appointment to duty posts is not adequate having regard to the vacancies in such posts, it may direct the committee to consider the case of officers who have officiated for a period of not less than 5 (five) years in any of the posts mentioned in Schedule-I and prepare a separate list of officers selected. The selection for inclusion in the list shall be based on merit and suitability in respects for officiating appointments to duty posts with due regard to seniority. The provision of sub-rule (3) to (8) of Rule-15 shall apply mutatis-mutandis in the preparation of the list under this rule. 26. Officiating appointments to duty posts of the service: (1). If any member of the service is not available for holding a duty post, the post may be filled on an officiating basis:- (a) by the appointment of an officer included in the list referred to in sub-rule (7) of Rule-15, or Page No.# 21/27 (b) If no such officer is available, by the appointment of an officer included in the list prepared under Rule-25. (2). Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, if the exigencies of public service so require, a duty post for which a member of the service is not available, may be filled on an officiating basis with prior consultation with the Commission by an officer belonging to a Forest Service of any of the State/UT Government on deputation for such period or periods ordinarily not exceeding 3 (Three) years as the Government may consider it necessary. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, where appointment to a duty post is to be made purely as a local arrangement for a period of not exceeding 6 (Six) months, such appointments may be made by the Government from persons who are included in the list prepared under sub-rule (7) of Rule-15 or who are eligible for inclusion in such a list. (4) Any appointment made under sub-rule (3) above shall be reported by the Government to the Commission forthwith. 27.Posting of member of the service: (i). Every member of the service shall, unless he/she is appointed to an ex-cadre post, or is otherwise not available for holding a duty post owing to the exigencies of public service, be posted against a duty post under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh in or outside the State by the Government. (ii). A member in the service shall have compulsorily served a minimum tenure of period in duty posts as may be specified by the Government from time to time. SCHEDULDE-I C. Post under Additional Deputy Conservator of Forests as attached Officer in various Forest Division as under (19 posts): Sl. No. Name of Upgraded post of APFS No. of post Pay Level in the Pay Matrix Level-11, Rs. 67700-208700 3. Addl. Dy. Conservator of Forests, Banderdewa Division 01 -do- ” 50. A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions shows that the Arunachal Page No.# 22/27 Pradesh Forest Service under the APFS Rules, 2019 comprises four distinct grades, namely, Entry Grade, Senior Grade, Selection Grade and Administrative Grade. The post of Assistant Conservator of Forest falls under the Entry Grade, whereas the posts of Deputy Conservator of Forests/Additional Deputy Conservator of Forests are borne in the higher grades of the service. The authorised permanent strength of the service and the posts included therein are specified in Schedule-I. 51. Schedule-I(C) provides for the sanctioned posts of Additional Deputy Conservator of Forests as attached officers in various Forest Divisions, including one such post attached to the Banderdewa Forest Division. However, the Schedule only indicates the cadre strength and the distribution of sanctioned posts under the service. It does not state that the post of Divisional Forest Officer, Banderdewa Forest Division, must be held only by an officer belonging to the Senior or Selection Grade, nor does it say that an officer of the Entry Grade cannot be assigned the functional duties of DFO. 52. The contention of the petitioner is based on Rules 21 and 24 of the APFS Rules, 2019, which deal with probation and confirmation. It is submitted that Respondent No. 3, being an ACF in the Entry Grade and admittedly on probation, was not eligible to be posted as DFO. However, Rules 21 and 24 only regulate the period of probation and the conditions for confirmation of a member of the service. They do not contain any provision which bars the Government from giving a functional posting to an officer who is still on probation. In the absence of any such legal restriction, the Court cannot read such a limitation into the Rules. 53. Rules 25, 26 and 27 of the APFS Rules, 2019 mainly deal with officiating appointments and the posting of members of the service against duty posts. Page No.# 23/27 These provisions are part of the overall scheme of the Rules. However, the present issue is not about the validity of an officiating appointment under Rules 25 or 26. Therefore, these provisions do not directly decide the question raised by the petitioner, namely whether an ACF on probation is automatically disqualified from being given the functional duties of DFO. 54. On the other hand, it has been consistently stated by the State respondents and Respondent No. 3 that the post of DFO, Banderdewa Forest Division, is normally meant to be held by an officer of the Indian Forest Service, and due to shortage of such officers, officers of the Arunachal Pradesh Forest Service are assigned such duties as a matter of administrative need. It has also been shown that similar arrangements have been followed in the Department over the time. Whether this practice is ideal is not for this Court to decide. The only question is whether it is prohibited by the APFS Rules, 2019. 55. Upon consideration of the APFS Rules, 2019, this Court is unable to find any legal bar which requires that the post of DFO, Banderdewa Forest Division, can be held only by an officer of the Senior or Selection Grade, or which prevents the Government from assigning the functional duties of DFO to an ACF in the Entry Grade. The interpretation suggested by the petitioner would require reading a restriction into the Rules which is not supported by its language. In the absence of such restriction, the challenge to the posting of Respondent No. 3 being violative of provisions of the APFS Rules, 2019, cannot be accepted. 56. It is also pertinent to note that this Court, in WP(C) No. 331(AP)/2025 and WP(C) No. 445(AP)/2025 (Hano Moda vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.), while considering an identical issue under the APFS Rules, 2019, held that Schedule-I only indicates the sanctioned strength and distribution of posts and does not create an absolute bar confining the post of Page No.# 24/27 Divisional Forest Officer to a particular cadre. It was further held that, in the absence of any clear prohibition, the State may make functional arrangements on administrative exigencies, including shortage of officers in the higher cadre, by assigning charge of such posts to officers of a lower grade, provided there is no prejudice or alteration in service conditions. 57. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the decision in WP(C) No. 76(AP)/2025 undoubtedly deserves consideration. However, it is equally well settled that a precedent operates within the factual matrix in which it is rendered. If the competent authority demonstrates that the present arrangement is necessitated by distinct administrative circumstances, including shortage of IFS cadre officers and functional requirements of the division, the earlier decision cannot be applied mechanically without examining the changed or distinguishing facts. 58. It is also of significance that the petitioner has been transferred to an equivalent post of DCF (Industries) in the office of the PCCF at Itanagar. There is no reduction in rank, pay, status or service benefits. The transfer is, therefore, purely lateral in nature. In such circumstances, the plea of prejudice raised by the petitioner does not commend acceptance.The contention regarding proximity to superannuation also does not, by itself, create any legal bar on the exercise of the power of transfer, particularly when the same is shown to be based on administrative exigency and public interest. In absence of any statutory restriction or demonstrated arbitrariness, the timing of the transfer, even in relation to the petitioner’s nearing retirement, cannot be a ground to invalidate the same. 59. The contention of the petitioner that the impugned transfer is punitive in nature also does not merit acceptance. A careful reading of the speaking order Page No.# 25/27 shows that the competent authority has taken into account certain administrative inputs relating to the functioning of the petitioner in the Banderdewa Forest Division, along with broader considerations of public interest and effective forest management. However, mere reference to such administrative or performance-related aspects, without initiation of disciplinary proceedings or imposition of any stigma in the nature of punishment, does not convert an otherwise administrative transfer into a punitive measure. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Janardhan Debanath (supra), where the competent authority is prima facie satisfied, on the basis of available material, that transfer is necessary in the interest of maintaining discipline, ensuring smooth administration or meeting administrative exigencies, it is not incumbent upon the employer to hold a prior departmental enquiry before effecting such transfer. The question whether the allegations are ultimately established is a matter to be examined independently in appropriate disciplinary proceedings, if any, and does not govern the validity of the transfer order. 60. In the present case, the respondents have justified the impugned transfer on grounds of administrative exigency and public interest, including concerns relating to the effective management of the Forest Division. The speaking order also records certain administrative inputs relating to the petitioner’s functioning in the Banderdewa Forest Division. The mere reference to the petitioner’s functioning in the speaking order, by itself, cannot render the transfer punitive in nature, particularly when the impugned order does not entail any civil consequences such as reduction in rank, pay or status, nor does it impose any penalty recognised in service jurisprudence. The transfer, being to an equivalent post, therefore retains its character as an administrative transfer effected in public interest and in exigency of service. Page No.# 26/27 61. It is further stated by the respondents that disciplinary proceedings are pending against the petitioner; however, the same are stated to be independent and unconnected with the impugned transfer order and have not been relied upon or formed the basis for issuance of the said order. The mere pendency of such proceedings, therefore, does not affect the validity of an otherwise administrative transfer made on grounds of public interest and administrative exigency. 62. No material has been placed on record to establish mala fides, arbitrariness, or violation of any specific statutory provision under the APFS Rules, 2019. The challenge is essentially founded on an interpretative dispute regarding the cadre structure and applicability of the Rules, which, upon proper construction, does not support the interpretation advanced by the petitioner. 63. The reliance placed by the petitioner upon Somesh Tiwari(supra) and Panpong Tangha(supra) does not advance the petitioner’s case. In Somesh Tiwari (supra), the Supreme Court interfered with the transfer order as it was founded solely on an extraneous and unsubstantiated anonymous complaint, which had been found to be baseless in enquiry, yet was still acted upon, thereby rendering the order punitive in character. Similarly, in Panpong Tangha (supra), this Court interfered with the transfer upon finding that the order was founded on allegations of misconduct without initiation of disciplinary proceedings and in the absence of any discernible administrative exigency or public interest, thereby amounting to a punitive transfer. 64. The factual position in the present case is clearly distinguishable. The impugned transfer is not shown to be based on any unverified complaint or treated as a substitute for disciplinary proceedings, nor is there any material to establish that it is punitive in nature. On the contrary, the respondents have Page No.# 27/27 justified the transfer on the basis of administrative exigency and public interest considerations. In absence of any pleaded or proved mala fides or violation of statutory provisions, the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions do not warrant application to the facts of the present case. 65. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the challenge to the impugned transfer and posting order dated 28.04.2026 as well as the speaking order dated 12.05.2026. 66. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit. There shall be no order as to cost(s). JUDGE Comparing Assistant