This writ application has been filed challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 2.5.97 issued by the authority transferring the petitioner from one place to other. The petitioner herein is Extra Assistant Commissioner and he was posted earlier at New Seren.

2. There was an incident regarding demolition and uprooting of some trees and demolition of house between the Assam Police and Arunachal Pradesh Police. Be that as it may, this matter was reported in the local paper and thereafter the petitioner was transferred from Pasighat to another place. This transfer order is challenged on the following two grounds :

(i) That this transfer is not on the ground of public interest.

(ii) That the order of transfer is by way of punishment.

3.1 have heard Sri C. Baruah, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Sri AK Phukan, learned Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh. On behalf of the petitioner it is urged that this order of transfer is not in public interest but at the behest of respondent No.3, Speaker of Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly. There is absolutely no materials to say that this order of transfer was issued at the behest of respondent No.3. From the order it appears that it was done in the public interest. Sri C. Baruah, learned Advocate for the petitioner in support of his contention relies on the following decision :

(i) 1997 (1) GLJ 621 (M. Ajem Jamir vs. State of Nagaland & others). This is a case, this Court pointed out, that transfer order passed malafide or in contravention with any statutory provisions are amenable to jurisdiction under Article 226. Though in this writ application some vague allegations have been made regarding malafide. Malafide as required to be brought home has not been established. The question of it not being inconformity with a statutory provisions does not arise. So, this case does not help the petitioner.

(ii) Next case relied on by Sri C. Baruah is(1994) 6 SCC 98 (NK Singh vs. Union of India & others). The Supreme Court in paragraph 23 has pointed out inter alia as follows :

"Unless the decision is vitiated by malafides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer, which alone can be scrutinised judicially, there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinising all transfers and the Courts lack the necessary expertise for personnel management of all Government departments. This must be left, in public interest, to the departmental heads subject to the limited judicial scrutiny indicated."

4. As pointed out above, the decision in this particular case is not vitiated by the authority nor there is any infraction of any professed norms or principle governing the transfer which alone can be scrutinised judicially. So, this case also does not help the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the respondents urged that the . order of transfer is not vindictive and it was made on the public interest and there is no malafide and authority is the best judge how to utilise the service of a person. The Court cannot play the role of administrator and cannot decide the suitability of posting of one person at a particular place. In support of this contention, the learned Advocate for the respondents relied on the following decisions :

(i) 1986 (1) SLJ (Ghy) (Barielly Electricity Supply Co Ltd vs. Siraj Uddin (1960) 1 Lab LJ 556 (SC), wherein the Division Bench of this Court held as follows:

"(a) Transfer per se cannot be held to be a punishment. If the transfer was made bonafide for administrative reasons no objection can be taken. Of the administrative reason includes the performance of the officer concerned, then also it would not be reasonable to conclude that it was by way of punishment unless the order was such that no authority would reasonably have otherwise passed such an order.

(b) Transfer is a managerial function and so long it is performed for managerial purpose in the interest of service consistently with the rules and/or administrative inst

Click Here to Read the rest of this document