Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 15403

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Manish Choudhury, J
Gonong Pertin – Appellant
Versus
State Of Arunachal Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 530[AP]/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T. Pertin
For the Respondents: R.H. Nabam, P. Taffo, A. Tatak

A transfer order is an administrative decision subject to judicial review only for mala fides or illegality. Modification of such orders must be based on objective administrative assessment, not merely external recommendations, and cannot invalidate an order that has already been properly implemented by the officer.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Service Law - Transfer of government servant - Judicial review of transfer order - An order of transfer is an incident of service and an administrative decision, not to be interfered with unless found to be mala fide, in violation of statutory provisions, or contrary to professed norms - Policy guidelines on transfer, in the absence of statutory force, do not confer an enforceable right upon an employee. (Paras 13)

(B) Transfer - Administrative exigency - Role of public representatives - While recommendations from public representatives do not by themselves vitiate a transfer order, there must be an objective assessment of administrative exigency and suitability by the competent authority - Abdication of duty by authorities in favor of external representations without independent application of mind renders the order infirm. (Paras 17, 21, 23)

(C) Transfer - Procedure and Implementation - Unilateral assumption of charge - Where an officer is transferred and the relieving officer strictly follows prescribed procedures to take charge, and the relieved officer remains absent, the transfer becomes effectuated once charge is assumed unilaterally/ex parte. (Paras 31, 36, 37)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a government official, challenged an order of transfer that partially modified an earlier, already implemented transfer order. The petitioner argued that the modification was made at the behest of public representatives without proper application of mind and in violation of established internal transfer policies. The petitioner had already assumed the new post ex parte following the original transfer order.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the authorities had failed to record reasons or demonstrate an objective assessment of suitability, essentially abdicating their decision-making power to external requests. Furthermore, the Court found the petitioner had already properly assumed the new office in adherence to established departmental procedures, rendering the subsequent modification order unsustainable.

Issues: The main issues were whether a transfer order modified at the instance of public representatives without recorded reasons for administrative necessity is valid, and the effect of an ex parte assumption of charge by the transferee in accordance with service guidelines.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that an administrative authority must apply its mind independently to the exigencies of service when modifying transfer orders. Since the original transfer had already been given effect through the petitioner’s proper assumption of charge, the subsequent order lacking valid administrative justification was arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside.

Table of Content
1. summary of the transfer dispute and factual background of the parties. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. parties argument regarding tenure norms, political interference and administrative power. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. principles of judicial review regarding transfer as an incident of service. (Para 12 , 13 , 17 , 23 , 24)
4. assessment of political recommendations in transfer orders and objective administrative decision-making. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 25)
5. compliance with procedure for joining/relief and legal effect of unilateral/ex-parte assumption of charge. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
6. quashing of order issued without proper application of mind regarding the status of the office. (Para 38 , 39)

JUDGMENT & ORDER

In this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed an Order bearing no. SWRD/E-09/2013/Pt-II dated 10.11.2025 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Water Resources Department [WRD]. It is stated that the impugned Order is in partial modification of an earlier order of even number dated 29.10.2025. By the impugned Order, the petitioner, an Executive Engineer in the Water Resources Department [WRD], Government of Arunachal Pradesh, has been transferred and posted from Seppa WRD Division to Daporijo WRD Circle vice one Sri Hanu Techi Tara, Executive Engineer transferred. In the impugned Order, it is stated that the petitioner was under an order of posting at Yingkiong WRD Division. By the same impugned Order, the respondent no. 4, also an Executive Engineer, who was also under an order of posting to Daporijo WRD Circle, has been shown to be retained at Yingkiong WRD Division.

2. The petitioner is in service in the rank and post of regular Executive Engineer under the Water Resources Department [WRD], Government of Arunachal Pradesh. Pursuant to recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer and posted at Seppa WRD by an Order dated 26.11.2014. The respondent no. 4 is in the substantive post of Assistant Engineer and he was appointed as Executive Engineer on functional basis in his own pay level and grade pay of Assistant Engineer by an Order dated 17.06.2020.

3. By an Order dated 11.07.2023, a number of Executive Engineers were transferred and posted at different places, as indicated therein, in the interest of public service. The petitioner who was then serving as Executive Engineer at Pasighat Division, was transferred to the Office of Superintending Engineer Coord, WRD, Itanagar as Executive Engineer [P&D]. By the same Order, the respondent no. 4 was transferred from Kolorian Division, WRD to Yingkiong Division, WRD as Executive Engineer.

4. By a subsequent Order dated 05.08.2024, a number of Executive Engineers were again transferred and posted at different places, as mentioned therein, in the interest of public service. The petitioner was transferred from the Office of the Superintending Engineer, Coord, Itanagar to Seppa WRD Division as Executive Engineer. While the petitioner was serving as Executive Engineer at Seppa Division for about one year and two months after the Order dated 08.05.2024, the petitioner was again transferred and posted as Executive Engineer at Yingkiong Division, WRD by an Order dated 29.10.2025 in the interest of public service. By the Order dated 29.10.2025, the respondent no. 4 was transferred from Yingkiong Division, WRD to Daporijo Circle, WRD as Executive Engineer [P&D].

5. I have heard Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3; Mr. P. Taffo, learned senior counsel for the respondent nos. 4 & 5; and Mr. A. Tatak, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6.

6. Mr. Pertin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that during the period from 11.07.2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 15403

GAUHATI HIGH COURTManish Choudhury, JGonong Pertin – AppellantVersusState Of Arunachal Pradesh – RespondentWRIT PETITION (C) NO. 530[AP]/2025

Cases Referred (3)

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Manish Choudhury, J
Gonong Pertin – Appellant
Versus
State Of Arunachal Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 530[AP]/2025