Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT ITANAGAR BENCH
KARDAK ETE, J.
Pokter Rime – Petitioner
Versus
The State of A.P. and Others – Respondents
WP (C) No. 461 of 2022
Decided On : 30-06-2023
TRANSFER - Education Department Transfer Orders - Article 226 of the Constitution - The court discussed the principles governing transfer orders, emphasizing that such orders must be made in public interest and supported by sufficient reasons. It highlighted the illegality of modifying transfer orders based on political influence, as seen in the case where the petitioner was transferred but later retained due to the intervention of MLAs. The court concluded that the impugned order lacked justification and was not in the public interest, leading to its quashing.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a transfer order that modified his posting from Deputy Director of Secondary Education (DDSE) back to Principal at GHSS, Namsai, after he had already joined the new position. The modification was influenced by political pressure from local MLAs, which the petitioner argued was arbitrary and lacked public interest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order was issued without sufficient justification and was influenced by political pressure rather than public interest. It emphasized that transfer orders should be made based on administrative exigencies and not political considerations.
Issues: Whether the modification of the transfer order was justified and made in public interest, and whether the court should intervene in the transfer decision influenced by political pressure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that transfer orders must be made in public interest and supported by adequate reasons. It ruled that the impugned order was arbitrary, as it was influenced by political figures rather than based on administrative needs, thus violating principles of fair governance.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order dated 21.11.2022, allowing the petitioner to retain his position as DDSE, while suggesting that the authorities consider the respondent No. 5's situation due to her impending retirement.
JUDGMENT :
KARDAK ETE, J.
1. Heard Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also, heard Mr. T. Jamoh, learned standing counsel for the Education Department representing the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. D. Soki, learned counsel appearing for private respondent No. 5.
2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order No. 15/2022 dated 21.11.2022, issued on 22.11.2022, by which the Commissioner of Education, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, had partially modified the transfer and posting order no. DSE-13011/14/2021 dated 15.11.2022, by which the petitioner, who was posted as the Principal, GHSS, Namsai was transferred as Deputy Director of Secondary Education (DDSE for short), Daporijo, Upper Subansiri, is sought to be retained at GHSS, Namsai as Principal and the respondent no. 5, who was the principal of GHSS, Ligu was transferred and posted as DDSE, Daporijo, Upper Subansiri District.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he was transferred vide order dated 15.11.2022 from GHSS, Namsai, to Daporijo, Upper Subansiri District, as DDSE. After completion of necessary formalities, the petitioner was released on 18.11.2022 by the Deputy Commissioner, Namsai. Thereafter, the petitioner had joined as DDSE, Daporijo, Upper Subansiri District on 21.11.2022.
4. Accordingly, the Extra Assistant Commissioner for the Deputy Commissioner, Upper Subansiri District on 21.11.2922 sent a WT Message to the Commissioner (Education) as well as the Director of Secondary Education apprising that the petitioner had joined his duty as DDSE, Upper Subansiri District on 21.12.2022. Consequent to the joining of the petitioner as DDSE, Upper Subansiri District, the petitioner took charge as the DDSE on 21.11.2022 itself from the In-Charge DDSE. Thereafter, the petitioner issued the circular dated 21.11.2022 apprising all the concerned that he had taken over the charge as DDSE, Upper Subansiri District.
5. The impugned order dated 21.11.2022 has been issued by the Commissioner (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh) signed on 22.11.2022 by which the earlier transfer order dated 15.11.2022 was partially modified in respect of the petitioner and the petitioner was retained as Principal, GHSS, Namsai and the private respondent No. 5 was posted as DDSE, Upper Subansiri District in place of the petitioner.
6. The petitioner on being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 21.11.2022 submitted a representation to the Commissioner (Education) apprising that the petitioner had already joined and taken charge as DDSE, however, the petitioner was informed that the impugned order would not be reviewed as the same has been done on the request of all the four Members of Legislative Assembly of Upper Subansiri District and as such being left no option the petitioner has filed this present petition.
7. Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner came to know that the impugned order has been passed at the intervention of four MLA’s of Upper Subansiri District vide a file being File No. 24490, DSE 13011/14/2001 was put up wherein it was categorically mentioned that on the request of the four MLA’s of Upper Subansiri District, the file for posting the respondent No. 5 in place of the petitioner is being put up and the same was consequently approved leading to the issuance of the impugned order dated 21.11.2022.
8. Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel submits that the very fact that the respondent no. 5 was able to get as many as 4 MLAs to make U.O. note in her favour makes it evident that the respondent No. 5 was again able to bear political pressure upon the respondent authorities for posting as DDSE, Upper Subansiri district and the impugned order was not issued in public interest but just to accommodate the respondent no. 5 as such, the respondent authorities have mortgaged their conscience and have succumbed to political pressure while issuing the impugned order.
9. Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel submits that b
Transfer orders in public service must be made based on administrative necessity and public interest, and cannot be influenced by political pressure or arbitrary decisions.
Transfer orders must comply with established policies, especially regarding employees nearing retirement, and cannot be influenced by political interference.
The judicial review of an order of transfer and posting requires the presence of mala fide exercise of power or violation of statutory provision for interference.
A transfer order made in public interest must be supported with sufficient reasons, and the absence of reasons makes the order arbitrary and illegal.
Transfer orders in government service must be made in public interest and administrative exigencies, and modifications to such orders require valid justification; courts will not interfere unless the....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of transfer and posting should be exercised honestly, bona fide, and reasonably, based on administrative exigency and public interes....
Transfer orders are a condition of service and can be modified in public interest without requiring reasons in the order.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
