A subsequent transfer order issued without formally cancelling a prior subsisting order and without providing cogent reasons for the modification is arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)

Heard Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R. Basar, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. G. Tarak, learned Standing Counsel, Rural Works Department for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

Challenge made in this writ petition is to the order dated 11.02.2026 issued by the Superintending Engineer (Co-ord), Rural Works Department (RWD), Itanagar, whereby the petitioner is sought to be transferred from the Rural Works Division, Changlang to the establishment of the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Laaying Yangte, Kurung Kumey District.

The petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Department of Rural Works, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, vide order dated 16.02.2017 and was posted at the RWD, Changlang Division under the Executive Engineer. While the petitioner was serving as Junior Engineer under the Executive Engineer, RWD, Changlang Division, the Executive Engineer, RWD, Jairampur Division, Changlang District, vide letter dated 09.02.2026, placed a requisition before the Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Circle, Miao, Changlang District seeking transfer of Junior Engineers to his Division. Pursuant thereto, vide order dated 09.02.2026, the Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Circle, Miao, transferred the petitioner from Rural Works Department, Changlang Division to the establishment of the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Jairampur, with immediate effect. In the said order, it was stipulated that the transfer and posting must be completed within 15 days from the date of issuance of the order.

When the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Changlang Division did not release the petitioner to enable him to join at his new place of posting under the Rural Works Department, Jairampur Division, even after lapse of 9 (nine) days from the date of issuance of the transfer order, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 18.02.2026 before the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Changlang Division requesting for his early release from the said establishment to comply with the transfer order dated 09.02.2026. However, while the petitioner was still awaiting release from Rural Works Department, Changlang Division for joining at Rural Works Department, Jairampur Division, the Superintending Engineer (Coordination), Rural Works Department, Itanagar, vide impugned order dated 11.02.2026, transferred the petitioner from Rural Works Department, Changlang Division to the establishment of the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Laaying Yangte, Kurung Kumey District, Arunachal Pradesh.

Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned transfer and posting order dated 11.02.2026 issued by the Superintending Engineer (Co-ord), Rural Works Department, Itanagar has been issued in a back-dated and arbitrary manner without cancelling, superseding or modifying the earlier subsisting transfer and posting order dated 09.02.2026. It is submitted that pursuant to the earlier order dated 09.02.2026, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 18.02.2026 before the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Changlang Division requesting for his release in order to comply with the said order. However, instead of releasing the petitioner, the respondent authorities issued the impugned subsequent transfer order dated 11.02.2026 transferring the petitioner from Rural Works Department, Changlang Division to the establishment of the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Laaying Yangte, Kurung Kumey District, without assigning any reasons.

Mr. Lollen, learned counsel further submits that it is well settled that though transfer orders issued in public interest are not ordinarily interfered with, such orders must be supported by reasons and must not suffer from arbitrariness. In the present case, it is contended that the respondents have kept the e