SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 10

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OFASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.
Sri Duken Kato – Appellant
Versus
The State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 324 (AP) OF 2024
Decided on : 07-01-2025

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. D. Mozumdar, Senior Advocate, Mr. G. Kato, Mr. S. Biswakarma, Mr. G. Bam, Advocates, Mr. R.B. Phookan, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. K. Loya, Mr. D. Soki, Advocate.

Transfer orders must comply with established policies, especially regarding employees nearing retirement, and cannot be influenced by political interference.

Headnote:(A) Teachers Transfer and Posting Policy, 2019-20 - Circulars dated 02.06.1998, 18.08.2021 - Transfer of petitioner from DDSE, Aalo to Principal, NMGHSS, Aalo challenged on grounds of mala fide and violation of transfer policies - Court found transfer order contrary to established guidelines regarding transfers within one year of retirement. (Paras 48-50)

(B) Administrative Discretion - The court emphasized that transfer orders must adhere to established policies and cannot be influenced by political interference. (Paras 24-26)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, after serving outside his home district for 16 years, sought a transfer to care for his ailing mother, which was granted. However, subsequent transfers were challenged as politically motivated.

Findings of Court:
The transfer order was quashed due to non-compliance with transfer policies and allegations of mala fide.

Issues: The main issues included the legality of the transfer order and adherence to transfer policies.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the transfer violated established guidelines and was influenced by political pressure, thus lacking legitimacy.

Result: The transfer order was set aside, allowing the petitioner to remain in his position. Parties involved: Petitioner, Respondent No. 5, Education Department, Respondent No. 6. Dissenting opinions: None noted.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. D. Mozumder, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Biswakarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Tagum, learned standing counsel for the Education Department, representing respondent no.1 to 4, Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. R.B. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent no.5, Mr. K. Loya, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 and Mr. D. Soki, learned counsel for respondent no.7.

2. It was jointly submitted at the Bar that the matter can be heard and disposed of at the “admission” stage as no more pleadings are required to be exchanged. Accordingly, on the joint prayer made by learned senior counsel and counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard.

3. The learned senior counsel and counsel for the parties are ad idem that as per the service rules in force in the State, the Principal of a Govt. Secondary School, Deputy Director of School Education (DDSE for short) and Deputy Director of Elementary Education (DDEE for short) belong to the same cadre and are analogous posts. It is also not disputed that the petitioner, during his service career, has remained outside his home district during last 16 years.

4. The case of the petitioner is that during the last part of the year 2020, the health of the mother of the petitioner had deteriorated and therefore, on 13.01.2021, he had submitted a representation before the Education Minister seeking posting at Aalo to enable him to take care of his mother, which was favourably considered and by order dated 04.05.2021, he was transferred as DDSE, Aalo, West Siang District. Accordingly, he had joined on 10.05.2021 and received charge on 17.05.2021.

5. Thereafter, on 02.11.2021, the MLA of Dirang Assembly Constitution had put up a “U.O.” note requesting transfer of Sri Yidak Angu (respondent no. 5), then posted as Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Yomcha. Consequently, a transfer order dated 21.07.2022 was issued by the Commissioner (Education), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, thereby transferring 4 (four) persons, including the petitioner and respondent no.5. The petitioner was transferred from DDSE, West Siang District, Aalo to the post of DDSE, Office of Director Secondary Education, Itanagar. The respondent no. 5 was transferred from Govt. Higher Secondary School, Yomcha to DDSE, West Siang District, Aalo. The said transfer order was put to challenge by the petitioner before this Court by filing W.P.(C) 264(AP)/2022. The said WP(C) 264(AP)/2022 was disposed of by order dated 04.08.2022, with a direction to the Commissioner, Education, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner. The said representation was rejected by passing a speaking order dated 24.08.2022.

6. By filing W.P.(C) 292(AP)/2022, the petitioner had assailed the hereinbefore referred transfer order and speaking order. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court by judgment and order dated 28.09.2022. However, in Intra-Court appeal filed by the petitioner, by judgment and order dated 22.09.2023, W.A. No. 219/2023 was allowed by holding that the petitioner was transferred to accommodate respondent no.5 and therefore, illegal. Against the said judgment, the respondent no. 5 had filed Special Leave Petition (C) 22612/2023 before the Supreme Court of India, which was dismissed by order dated 13.10.2023. In the meanwhile, the petitioner joined as DDSE, Aalo on 11.10.2023.

7. The petitioner claims that as he came to know that the respondent no. 5 is trying to get posted as DDSE, Aalo, the petitioner had submitted a representation before the Chief Minister on 19.12.2023 with copy to the Commissioner, Education and submitted another representation before the Minister of Education and Commissioner, Education, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh on 17.07.2024, this time projecting that he would be superannuating in 7 (seven) months.

8. By an order dated 07.08.2024, issued by the Commissioner (Education), the petitioner was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top