GAHC010049042026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/1502/2026 NIRANJAN DAS SON OF LATE SONADHAR DAS, RESIDENT OF SUBHASINI ROAD NEAR PINE WOOD HOSPITAL IN THE DISTRICT OF TINSUKIA, ASSAM. PIN-

786126.

VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, ASSAM, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.

2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM EXCISE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006

3:THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM EXCISE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006.

4:SRI JANARDAN GOSWAMI INSPECTOR OF EXCISE LAKHIMPUR SADAR CIRCLE LAKHIMPUR Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY, MR. D J DAS,MR. TANUZ KASHYAP,MR. R M DEKA,N GAUTAM Advocate for the Respondent : SC, EXCISE DEPTT., BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

ORDER

18.03.2026 Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R.M.

Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent Department.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order of transfer. According to the petitioner, he is being sought to be transferred in total violation of the norms and the guidelines which was issued in respect of transfers. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in a span of 05(five) years, he was transferred six times within the State and the impugned transfer order transferring him from Tinsukia to Gossaigaon should not have been made in terms of the Election Commission guidelines as he does not fall within the criteria specified for such transfers namely, not in home district or having spend three year in such place of posting. Under such circumstances, the learned Standing Counsel, Excise Department was permitted to complete his instructions on the last date and the matter was fixed today.

3. Today, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam appears on behalf of the Department and has placed before the Court the relevant note-sheets. In the note sheets placed before the Court, he has tried to justify that the action of the Department is not vindictive rather it is because of exigencies of service. He submits that in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 06.08.2013, the period of three years has been modified to two years and therefore, ordinarily a person, who has not completed two years, would not be transferred out of his place of posting in respect of routine transfers.

However, it does not exclude transfers required to be made for exigencies of service, even after the period of two years is not completed. He further submits that because of the Election Commission Notification, the transfers are required to be made in respect of persons who are in their home districts or who have completed more than two years. In the process, in order to accommodate those candidates who fall under the Notification or guidelines issued by the Election Commission, some other persons like the writ petitioner who although do not fall within the criteria, are also required to be transferred out. Under such circumstances, besides the writ petitioner, as many as, five other candidates have been transferred out although they do not fall within the criteria, but to meet the exigencies of service. These transfers have had the approval of the highest authority in the State as is relevant from the note-sheets placed before the Court. Under such circumstances, it is submitted that the transfer order ought not to be interfered with. In that view of the matter, the petitioner may file a representation before the authorities and the authorities may consider his prayer, however subject to the writ petitioner joining in his place of posting i.e. at Gossaigaon in terms of the impugned transfer order.

4. Mr. Goswami, learned Additonal Advocate General, Assam has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench in State of Assam and others –vs- Dilip Kumar Sarma and others, to submit that in the