Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 16342

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, once effectuated through the incoming officer's lawful assumption of charge, cannot be arbitrarily modified without objective administrative reasoning. Judicial review remains available where the order reflects a non-application of mind or stems from an abdication of decision-making responsibility to third-party recommendations.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Service Law - Transfer of government employee - Judicial review - Transfer is an incidence of service and is not to be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction unless it is found that the order is mala fide, issued by an incompetent authority, or in violation of statutory provisions or professed norms. (Paras 13, 17)

(B) Transfer Policy - Administrative Guidelines - Policy guidelines regarding tenure do not confer any enforceable legal right in the absence of statutory force; however, where an authority invokes a power to transfer, consistency with announced procedures and objective assessment of administrative exigency is a check against arbitrary action. (Paras 13, 29)

(C) Transfer Order - Effectuation - Once a transfer order is issued and the relieving officer assumes charge of the office unilaterally following due procedure in the event of the relieved officer's absence or failure to hand over charge, the transfer stands effectuated and the relieved officer stands automatically relieved of their duties. (Paras 31, 36, 37)

Facts of the case:
An executive engineer was transferred from one division to another by an order issued in the interest of public service. The officer complied and assumed charge at the new station following the prescribed procedure for unilateral charge assumption after the incumbent was found absent. Subsequently, the authorities issued an order in partial modification of the earlier transfer, seeking to retain the original officer at the post based on recommendations from elected representatives. The validity of this subsequent order is challenged.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the transferring authority failed to assign reasons for the modification, which were only offered later in affidavits. It concluded that the original order was duly effectuated when the officer assumed office in strict adherence to the prescribed administrative procedure, and the subsequent modification order was issued without proper application of mind, rendering it infirm.

Issues: The main issues were whether a transfer order can be challenged based on non-compliance with non-statutory tenure guidelines, the scope of judicial review regarding transfers requested by political representatives, and the effect of unilateral assumption of charge by an incoming officer.

Ratio Decidendi: While transfers are administrative prerogatives, an order modifying an effectuated transfer without cogent reasons or objective assessment, and merely based on political recommendations, constitutes an arbitrary exercise of power. A transfer order is considered operational once the incoming officer adheres to the prescribed protocol for assuming charge.

Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned modification order set aside.

Table of Content
1. factual history of transfer orders and service profiles. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. parties' contentions regarding transfer policy, political interference, and public interest. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. transfer policy guidelines do not confer enforceable legal rights. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. evaluation of political interference and administrative decision-making in transfers. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
5. requirement to prove unsuitability of a public servant for vitiating a transfer. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
6. strict compliance with transfer charge procedures and administrative finality. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
7. quashing of arbitrary modification orders after the original order is executed. (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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 16342

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