Transfer orders must comply with statutory provisions and cannot be made arbitrarily in violation of service rules.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging inter alia an order of transfer dated 24.12.2024 and a subsequent speaking order dated 21.02.2025 whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected.

2. The case in hand has a chequered history.

3. The petitioner herein claims to be a Selection Grade Officer in the Arunachal Pradesh Forest Office, currently holding the post of Deputy Conservator of Forest (DCF). Pursuant to an order dated 14.02.2024, the petitioner was transferred from the Office of the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Mehau, to the Office of the DFO, Sagalee, where he duly joined his new place of posting at Sagalee. Subsequently, by an order dated 08.11.2024, the petitioner was again transferred from Sagalee Forest Division to Banderdewa Forest Division. The petitioner claims to have joined at his new place of posting at Banderdewa on 13.12.2024. However, vide the impugned order dated 24.12.2024, the earlier order was modified and the petitioner was directed to be retained at his previous posting in Sagalee. By the said order, the respondent No. 3, at Sl. No. 15, was transferred to Banderdewa. Further, at Sl. No. 19, it was clarified that the said respondent No. 3 would join the post at Banderdewa after retirement of the incumbent holding the post, namely, one Shri T. T. Toppu, who was scheduled to superannuate on 28.02.2025. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid move, had submitted a representation on 31.12.2024 followed by approaching this Court for the first time by filing WP(C) No. 58(AP)/2025. This Court, vide Order dated 05.02.2025, while issuing notice, had passed an order of status quo. The aforesaid writ petition had come up for further consideration on 14.02.2025 when the same was disposed of by directing consideration and disposal of the representation. This Court had however observed that till such disposal, the order of status quo would be maintained. Pursuant thereto, vide the second impugned order dated 21.02.2025, the representation submitted by the petitioner was rejected. Hence, the instant writ petition has been filed.

4. I have heard Shri R. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General representing the official respondents.

5. So far as the respondent No. 3 is concerned, the said respondent has chosen not to appear in spite of service and in this regard, this Court has taken into consideration the affidavit filed on 27.03.2025 as proof of Dasti service upon the said respondent No. 3.

6. Shri Saikia, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order of transfer dated 24.12.2024 is in violation of statutory provisions governing service conditions and has been passed only to extend undue favour to the respondent No. 3. By drawing the attention of this Court to the ARUNACHAL PRADESH FOREST SERVICE RULES , 2019 (in short, ‘Rule of 2019’), the learned counsel has referred to Rule 3(2) which lays down that there would be 4 (four) grades in the service. He further refers to Rule 2(h) which mandates the constitution of a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for both promotion and confirmation in service. He has also referred to Rule 24, which provides that confirmation in service shall be undertaken by a duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee in conformity with Rule 14 of the said Rules of 2019.