JUDGMENT Hrishikesh Roy, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel representing the petitioners. Also heard Ms. G Deka, learned Addl. Senior Government who represents the State-respondents. 2. The petitioners are 'Group-C & D' employees of the Lower Dibang Valley District and are before this Court in connection with their posting and transfer grievances, in pursuant to the bifurcation of the original Dibang Valley District into Dibang Valley District and Lower Dibang Valley District w.e.f. 16.12.2001. It may be noticed at the out-set that the Dibang Valley District with its District Headquarter at Anini is considered a hard posting district and Lower Dibang Valley District with its District Headquarter at Roing is considered a soft posting district. The writ-petitioners are posted in the soft district of Lower Dibang Valley District with its District Headquarter at Roing. 3. The order to appreciate the issues raised in the instant petition, certain essential facts must be noticed. Following the bifurcation of the Dibang Valley District into 2(two) districts w.e.f. 16.12.2001, the bifurcation of the 'Group-C & D' Staffs serving in the undivided Dibang Valley District became a necessity to serve the interests and the requirements of the newly created Lower Dibang Valley District. One option before the administration was to separate the Staff of the composite district into two Cadres with people serving in the hard district would continue to be in the new Cadre of the Dibang Valley District and people serving in the soft belt of the composite district would be the new Cadre of the Lower Dibang Valley District. As this would have resulted in hardships particularly to those who have continued to serve in the places falling within the hard belt without any future possibility of transfer to a soft belt area, the State Government decided to carry-out an exercise of Cadre bifurcation and cross-posting of Ministerial Cadre Staffs between the 2(two) districts. As per the modalities indicated in the Government Circular dated 22.03.2005, it was decided that the cross-posting between the 2 (two) districts would be made on the following basis: 1. Cross-posting to be done based on Station Seniority of the Staff in the hard belt and soft belt. 2. All such Staff who have completed 3 years in hard belt and 5 years in soft belt to be taken for cross-transfer postings in between the two districts. 3. Cross-posting to be done based on Station Seniority of the Staff in the hard belt and soft belt. 2. All such Staff who have completed 3 years in hard belt and 5 years in soft belt to be taken for cross-transfer postings in between the two districts. 3. The cut-off date for the calculation of tenures in hard place and soft place to be 31st January, 2005, or the date of Government's approval in this regard. 4. Cross transfer/posting to be done in batches of two for each category of Staff (two UDC + two LDC + two driver + two peon) each. That is, 2 staff in each category of Roing (Lower Dibang Valley District) with highest station seniority will come to Anini (Dibang Valley District) and 2 staff of Anini with highest station seniority to go to Roing. After the completion of processes with the 1st batch, next batch may move similarly. 5. Regarding first move and 2nd move of the Staff, for the first batch, the Anini staff to move first. For the 2nd batch, Roing staff to 1 move first and so on. 4. Similarly, the modalities notified on 22.03.2005 with regard to the Cadre bifurcation, indicated, interalia, that majority of the Staff of the undivided composite Dibang Valley District wanted to opt for posting in the 'soft district (Lower Dibang Valley District) and only a few of the employees have opted to remain in the hard district (Dibang Valley District). Accordingly, since it was feasible, a decision was taken that all Staffs who had opted to remain in the hard district can be permitted to remain in the hard District. A formula was evolved to determine posting of the Ministerial Staff in the said two districts whereby the persons who have served a longer tenure of service in hard belt postings would have the first option for being posted to the soft belt postings and corresponding obligation of those who have served for a longer tenure in soft belt postings would be posted for service in the hard belt postings. The cut-off date for calculation of tenure in hard and soft place of postings was notified as 31.01.2005 or on the date of Government's approval in this regard. The cut-off date for calculation of tenure in hard and soft place of postings was notified as 31.01.2005 or on the date of Government's approval in this regard. It was notified in the modalities dated 22.03.2005 that the exercises of posting Ministerial Staffs on the basis of their past tenure of hard and soft belt postings would continue till all the posts allotted in the two districts are filled-up minus those posts who have opted for service in the hard district (Dibang Valley District). 5. Some of the Ministerial Staff posted in the hard Dibang Valley District filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 378 (AP) 2005 with the apprehension that due to political consideration, the State Government may not implement its decision to make equitable distribution of Staff on the basis of past hard and soft belt tenure. The said writ petition came to be finally disposed of by the Court on 11.08.2005 and in the Judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the case, it was observed that the change of the existing policy of the State Government of accommodating employees on "as is where is" basis and formulating a new policy for taking care of posting on the basis of the past posting records of the employees have been upheld in earlier writ proceedings filed in WP(C) 3134 and 3156 of 2004, wherein the learned Single Judge by Judgment dated 23.12,2004 in K.S. Ramachandran and Ors. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors. reported in 2005 (1) GLT 59, upheld the policy decision of the State Government to make a special scheme to take care of the Ministerial Staff, following the bifurcation of the composite Dibang Valley District The said decision dated 23.12.2004 of the learned Single Judge, it was noted in the Judgment dated 11.08.2005, was up-held right up till the Apex Court where the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the affected Ministerial Staff was dismissed and the new policy decision of the State Government was upheld. 6. By order dated 11.08.2005, passed in WP(C) 378(AP) 2005, filed by 32 Ministerial Staff of hard posting Dibang Valley District, this Court, took note of the decision of the State Government of allowing cross-transfer of "Group-C & D" Staff between the Lower Dibang Valley District and Upper Dibang Valley District by maintaining a single Cadre. 6. By order dated 11.08.2005, passed in WP(C) 378(AP) 2005, filed by 32 Ministerial Staff of hard posting Dibang Valley District, this Court, took note of the decision of the State Government of allowing cross-transfer of "Group-C & D" Staff between the Lower Dibang Valley District and Upper Dibang Valley District by maintaining a single Cadre. Having noted the aforesaid decision of the State Government, the learned Single Judge in his Judgment dated 11.08.2005 referred to the modalities notified on 22.03.2005, noted herein above in the earlier paragraphs and directed the State Government to proceed with the matter taking into account the modalities formulated and notified on 22.03.2005 (Annexure-8). 7. In pursuant to the decision of the learned Single Judge, the State Government proceeded to implement the modalities of 22.03.2005 by issuing the order dated 09.11.2005 (Annexure-11) whereby the State Government conveyed its decision that a single Cadre shall be maintained for "Group-C & D" Staff of the soft and hard districts and that transfer and posting of the Ministerial Staff within each district will be done by the Deputy Commissioner as usual but inter district transfer and posting shall be done by the Divisional Commissioner (East). 8. Thereafter, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh notified the impugned order dated 15.06.2007 (Annexure-12) announcing a new scheme for bifurcation of the Joint Ministerial Cadre of the soft and hard districts. It was noted that the new scheme has been formulated and developed on the basis of the modalities recommended in the Joint Meeting of the Deputy Commissioners of the two districts. Under the new scheme, it was noted that most of the Ministerial Staff demanded to be posted in the soft district and since the interest of the employees who have served long tenures in the hard belts of the undivided Dibang Valley District have to be taken into account for their preferential posting in the soft district, a formula for allotment of marks on a scale of 0-100 basing on the duration of the hard posting tenure was evolved and it was notified that option of the employees with appropriate priority would be considered on the basis of the prioritization of claim by applying the formula on allotment of marks on a scale of 0-100. 9. Appearing for the writ-petitioners, who are Ministerial Staff and are now posted in the soft belts in the Lower Dibang Valley District, Mr. 9. Appearing for the writ-petitioners, who are Ministerial Staff and are now posted in the soft belts in the Lower Dibang Valley District, Mr. A.K. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel, submits that the State Government by notifying the impugned scheme have made a departure from the earlier modalities and also the decision of the State Government to maintain a single Cadre for the Ministerial Staff of the soft and hard districts with options for cross-transfer and since it is a departure from the said policy decision of the State Government, without any justifiable reason, intervention of the Court is called for. 10. The learned senior counsel also contends that while disposing of the earlier WP(C) 378(AP) 2005, on 11.08.2005, this Court construed the decision of the State Government to continue with a single Cadre Ministerial Staff for the two districts and its further decision to proceed on the modalities notified on 22.03.2005 and accordingly, permitted the State Government to proceed to deal with the posting of the Ministerial Staff in terms of the modalities notified on 22.03.2005. By referring to the said decision dated 11.08.2005, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel further contends that the impugned scheme notified on 15.06.2007 could not have been notified by the Government without leave of this Court as it is a departure from the earlier notified modalities dated 22.03.2005, which was directed to be implemented by the Court in its order. 11. It is also contended on behalf of the writ-petitioners that in all the earlier decisions of the Government and also the modalities notified on 22.03.2005, only two types of places of postings were notified and referred to, namely, soft and hard belts whereas in the impugned order dated 15.06.2007, the category of soft belt is not at all referred to and instead, a category of being posted in the middle belt had been notified. The learned senior counsel submits that by not spelling-out the areas which would be considered as middle belts and by not referring to any soft belt areas, the impugned scheme notified on dated 15.06.2007, is capable of being misused because of its ambiguities and for this reason alone, the said impugned order/scheme is liable to be interfered with for reconsideration by the State Government. 12. 12. The learned senior counsel appearing for the writ-petitioners further contends that the impugned order dated 15.06.2007 would encourage arbitrariness and would also be a departure from the modalities earlier notified by the Government on 22.03.2005 and since there is no justification for such departure, the Court's intervention is called for. 13. Ms. G. Deka, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, on the other hand, submits that it is for the State Government to decide this policy for dealing with the matter 1 concerning transfer and posting of its Ministerial Staff and the policy decision so taken by the State Government following bifurcation of the Dibang Valley District into two districts and the posting of the Ministerial Staff have already been up-held in the earlier writ proceeding, initiated by some of the present writ-petitioners, in the decision of K.S. Ramachandran and Ors. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors., reported in 2005 (1) GLT 59 and since the said decision of the High Court has also been up-held on Appeal by the Apex Court, interference by the Court at the instance of the same set of writ petitioners on the policy decision of the State Government with regard to posting of Ministerial Staff serving under the Dibang Valley District would not at all to be justified. 14. The learned Addl. Government Advocate further submits that only because of practical difficulties noticed by the State Government in implementing the scheme as envisaged under the modalities notified on 22.03.2005 of having a single Cadre Ministerial Staff with option of cross-transfer between the soft and hard districts, the State Government has come-out with the impugned policy decision dated 15.06.2007 and since it is for the State Government to evaluate the practical difficulties in matters of posting of its employees and take appropriate corrective steps which may call for a change of the earlier declared policy, it may not be justified for the Court to examine the legality of the modified policy, unless the Court concludes that the policy has been formulated for extraneous and non-bonafide considerations. 15. Ms. 15. Ms. Deka, learned Government Advocate also submits that as the Ministerial Staff who are serving in the soft district are happy to be posted where they are and are not desirous to be posted to hard district prior to final bifurcation of separate District Cadre Ministerial Staff, in order to obviate the sufferings of the Ministerial Staff who have put in many years of service in the hard belt postings, the Government has evolved a formula to allot marks on a scale of 0-100 to give priority to claims of appropriate postings for those employees who have put in maximum years of service in the hard belt postings. 16. It is seen in the impugned order dated 15.06.2007 that while attempting to implement its earlier scheme notified by the modalities dated 22.03,2005, the State Government has noted certain difficulties and the said problems faced by the State Government have been identified as follows: 1. According to Office Memorandum No. GA-56770 dated 28.09.1981, the Deputy Commissioner of the districts are the cadre-controlling authorities of the Ministerial Cadre in their respective districts, The Service Books and records of the district "Group-C & D" employees included in the District Ministerial Cadre are kept in the custody of the respective Deputy Commissioners. If the Divisional Commissioner (East) is to carry out transfers and postings, then all the Records/Service Books of the District Ministerial Cadre would have to be transferred to the Divisional Commissioner (East) and he would have to be made the Cadre Controlling Authority, i.e., the appointing and disciplinary authority. Such withdrawal of the Cadre Controlling power from the Deputy Commissioners would dilute their authority and control over their staff and impact adversely of the districts administration. 2. If the Divisional Commissioner (East) is made the Cadre Controlling Authority, additional staff will have to be appointed/added, to maintain records and process establishment matters. This will be an additional financial burden on the State Government. Inconveniences to the staff of the districts are also likely to be caused, as the Deputy Commissioner's Office is located away from the two districts. 3. Since there is a common cadre of "Group-C & D" employees in each district, the cross-transfer policy between the two districts would have to be made applicable to all the employees who are in the common cadre and not just to the employees in the DCs Office alone. 3. Since there is a common cadre of "Group-C & D" employees in each district, the cross-transfer policy between the two districts would have to be made applicable to all the employees who are in the common cadre and not just to the employees in the DCs Office alone. Currently, the employees of the other district offices such as the DMO, DAO, etc. are not transferred between districts. If they are made transferable between the two districts, complications and litigation are likely to arise. 4. Since the bifurcation of the undivided district in 2001, new posts have been created and filled-up by the respective Deputy Commissioners of the two districts. These employees appointed, in the respective Deputy Commissioners are for that district alone, i.e., they will not be transferable between the districts. Making the employees recruited prior to 2001, liable to cross-transfer while the employees recruited after 2001, not liable to transfer, could lead to a hue and cry and challenge/litigation in Courts. 5. From the practical standpoint, the two Deputy Commissioners of Anini and Roing are likely to have differing views regarding personnel/staff to be cross-transferred/posted in their districts. This may affect smooth implementation of the Cross-Transfer Policy. 6. Regular transfer and posting of staff is likely to cause huge expenditure to the Government on payment of Transfer TA. Every transfer requires a minimum of Rs.10000/- per employee. 7. Cross-transfer are also likely to adversely affect the institutional memory of the districts. The UDCs and LDCs and the ministerial cadre generally are considered to be the storehouse of data and custodian of records. The 'Group A & B' Staff are already transferable. Now if "Group-C & D" staff are also made transferable, it is likely to affect the availability of past data/information which is required by senior officers in discharging their duties. 8. The principles of natural justice of cross-transfers of staff and maintenance of a single cadre for two districts, if implemented, are likely to invite similar demands from the employees of the districts which had already been bifurcated earlier by the Government due to administrative necessity which would be difficult to resist in future. 17. 8. The principles of natural justice of cross-transfers of staff and maintenance of a single cadre for two districts, if implemented, are likely to invite similar demands from the employees of the districts which had already been bifurcated earlier by the Government due to administrative necessity which would be difficult to resist in future. 17. The said assessment of the Government with regard to the implementation of the earlier notified scheme appear to be bonafide as several relevant parameters appear to have been taken note by the State Government for taking a decision for departure from the earlier notified modalities dated 22.03.2005. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court, the change of the scheme appears to have been made by the State Government on bonafide consideration and on taking into consideration, all relevant aspects of the matter, which are germane for such consideration. 18. However, in the impugned scheme dated 15.06.2007, criteria for allotment of marks on a scale of 0-100 have been evolved on the basis of services rendered not only in the hard belts but also for services rendered in the middle belts. But no light is provided in the said impugned scheme nor in the counter-affidavit of the respondent authorities, as to which areas would be considered or construed to be falling within the middle belts, although, allotment of marks are envisaged for services rendered in the hard as well as middle belts. Unless the areas which would form the middle belt areas is made known by the State Government, it is difficult to visualize how the allotment of marks and consequent prioritization of preferred posting on the basis of such marks could be worked-out. This lacunae of not specifying the areas which would be considered as middle belt areas is not only glaring but in the absence of appropriate specification, is also capable of abuse to give benefit to un-deserving Ministerial Staff with regard to his/her priority choice of posting in a soft belt area. 19. This lacunae of not specifying the areas which would be considered as middle belt areas is not only glaring but in the absence of appropriate specification, is also capable of abuse to give benefit to un-deserving Ministerial Staff with regard to his/her priority choice of posting in a soft belt area. 19. But apartment from the above deficiency of not specifying the middle belt areas, this Court does not find any justification to interfere with the Government decision to come-up with a new scheme for bifurcation of the Ministerial Cadre of the soft and hard districts as the said decision appears to have been taken in public interest and on bonafide administrative exigency of the State Government after subjecting the earlier process to appropriate evaluation. Appropriate justifications as noticed in paragraph-14 hereinabove, are also indicated which inspires the confidence of the Court that the impugned decision is taken for germane and bonafide reasons. 20. However, while pronouncing this Judgment, this Court also has to take note of the submissions of the learned senior counsel that departure from the earlier modalities notified on 22.03.2005 could not have been made by the Government in view of the decision given by this Court on 11.08.2005 in WP(C) 378(AP) 2005 whereby this Court directed the Government to proceed with the matter taking into account the modalities notified on 22.03.2005. With regard to the above submissions, it can be seen from the Judgment dated 11.08.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge that no consideration on merit of the scheme formulated by the Government or the modalities notified on 22.03.2005 was made by the Court. By the aforesaid Judgment, the Court, in a way, only permitted the State Government to proceed to deal with the matter of posting of the Ministerial Staff in the newly created two districts of the undivided Dibang Valley District. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the Government had no liberty at all to re-consider its earlier decision and to notify a new scheme for the posting/of the Ministerial Staff in the Dibang Valley District and Lower Dibang Valley District because no such embargo is perceived in the order passed by this Court on 11.08.2005. Therefore, the challenge made by the writ-petitioners to the impugned notification dated 15.06.2007 on the basis of the learned Single Judge's Order dated 11.08.2005 is hereby rejected. 21. Therefore, the challenge made by the writ-petitioners to the impugned notification dated 15.06.2007 on the basis of the learned Single Judge's Order dated 11.08.2005 is hereby rejected. 21. As it is already noticed in the impugned order dated 15.06.2007 that there is no indication as to which areas would be considered as middle belt from amongst the areas of the undivided Dibang Valley District, to that extent and in order to avoid confusion and also to prevent abuse of powers on account of the ambiguities noticed, it is considered necessary to direct the respondent Government to issue appropriate clarification so as to indicate which areas would be considered as middle belt areas, for the purpose of allotment of marks on the scale of 0.100 for implementing the impugned decision/scheme for bifurcation of the Joint Ministerial Cadre of the soft and the hard districts. Since this clarification would be necessary for proper implementation of the new scheme, it is considered appropriate to direct the State Government to first specify in appropriate manner, the areas of the undivided Dibang Valley District which would constitute the middle belt areas and only after such notification, the exercise intended to be carried out by the impugned order dated 15.06.2007 be done. 22. Mr. A.K. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners additionally submits that the interest of the Ministerial Staff of the soft Lower Dibang Valley District have not been taken into account in the impugned order dated 15.06.2007 as it refers to only the Ministerial Staff serving in the hard and middle belts of the Dibang Valley District. With regard to the additional submission made on behalf of the petitioners that interest of the Ministerial Staff working in the soft Lower Dibang Valley District have been ignored and because of this reason, the impugned order dated 15.06.2007 is liable to be interfered with as the same is discriminatory in nature, this Court is of the view that the said argument cannot be accepted for maintaining a successful challenge against the said impugned order since it is nobody's case that the Ministerial Staff who are posted in the soft belt areas i.e. Lower Dibang Valley District, are interested to be posted in the hard belt areas i.e., the Dibang Valley District. In any case, in both the modalities notified on 22.03.2008 as well as the impugned order dated 15.06.2007, the Government has taken note of the fact that only a few of the Ministerial Staff have claimed for posting in the hard Dibang Valley District and since posts available in the said hard district are much larger than the demand for posting in the said hard Dibang Valley District, no discrimination can be said to result to the writ-petitioners who are all posted in the soft belt areas, by not mentioning of the soft belt areas' employees in the impugned order dated 15.06.2007. 23. In view of above, the writ petition stands disposed of by dismissing the challenge made by the writ-petitioners to the right and authority of the State Government to notify the impugned order dated 15.06.2007 and also the legality of the new scheme. At the same time, having regard to the facts noticed above, it is directed that the scheme notified on the transfer and posting of Ministerial Staff of the two bifurcated soft and had districts would be implemented only after an appropriate clarification is issued by the Government with regard to those areas which should be construed as middle belts for allotment of marks under the impugned order dated 15.06.2007. There shall be no order as to costs.