JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. For the purpose of disposal of this writ petition, it is necessary to advert to genesis of bifurcation of erstwhile Dibang Valley district into two districts namely, Lower Dibang Valley district with headquarters at Roing and the Dibang Valley district with headquarters at Anini. The notification was issued by the Government on 14.11.2001 giving effect to bifurcation from 16.12.2001. The bifurcation of district necessitated bifurcation of Group-C & D staff serving in the undivided Dibang Valley district. The Government without bifurcating the Group-C & D staff adopted "as is where is" principle in the matter of transfer. This principle of "as is where is", created widespread resentment amongst the ministerial staff, who were serving in Dibang Valley district with headquarters at Anini, which has been identified as "hard area". The Dibang Valley district with headquarters at Anini is considered to be "hard area" due to difficult terrain and lack of proper communication facility while in sharp contrast Lower Dibang Valley district with headquarters at Roing is considered as "soft area". This necessitated the Commissioner (District Administration), Government of Arunachal Pradesh to issue a letter dated 27.2.2002 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Dibang Valley district, Anini and Deputy Commissioner of Lower Dibang Valley district, Roing directing them to sit together preferably at Roing to finalize a separate list of staff who have served at least three years in "hard belt" other than Roing sub-division and a list of officials who have not served other than Roing with year-wise posting with specific order numbers and also to finalize a list based on up-to-date entries of the service book of the respective officials so as to enable the Government to take appropriate decision for cross transfer and posting of the staff of two districts. 2. The present writ petitioners filed a writ petition namely, WP(C) No. 3134 of 2004 (K.S. Ramchandran and 65 Ors. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors. and WP(C) No. 3156 of 2004 (Dilaram Sharma and 42 Ors. v. State of Aruanchal Pradesh and Ors. challenging the aforesaid move of inter district transfer communicated by the Government vide WT message dated 17.10.2003. A status quo order was passed on 7.5.2004 in the said writ petitions. Subsequently, the present respondents were impleaded as parties and they filed a miscellaneous case for vacating the status quo order. v. State of Aruanchal Pradesh and Ors. challenging the aforesaid move of inter district transfer communicated by the Government vide WT message dated 17.10.2003. A status quo order was passed on 7.5.2004 in the said writ petitions. Subsequently, the present respondents were impleaded as parties and they filed a miscellaneous case for vacating the status quo order. The aforesaid two writ petitions were dismissed by a common judgment and order dated 23.12.2004 holding that it is within the competence and jurisdiction of the Government to evolve a particular policy in the matter of transfer and posting of group-C & D employees of the erstwhile Dibang Valley district and the newly created Lower Dibang Valley district. Against the aforesaid judgment and order, the present writ petitioners preferred writ appeals namely WA No. 42 of 2005 and WA No. 53 of 2005, which were also dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of this Court. The present writ petitioners then filed SLP in the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed. 3. The decision of cross transfer and posting of staff could not be implemented due to pendency of the aforesaid litigations. After the end of the aforesaid litigations, joint meetings of both the Deputy Commissioners were held and made joint recommendations in respect of the proposed financial criteria/modalities for cadre bifurcation/cross transfer and posting of ministerial staff between the Dibang Valley district, Anini and Lower Dibang Valley district, Roing, which was communicated to the Secretary (District Administration), Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The Government of Arunachal Pradesh did not take any step to implement the joint recommendations made by the Deputy Commissioners concerned. At that stage, the present respondents apprehended that the aforesaid recommendations would not be implemented by the Government due to political consideration and as such, they filed writ petition namely, WP(C) No. 378 (AP) 2005. 4. At the time of hearing of the aforesaid writ petition, the learned Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh, produced a letter from the Secretary (District Administration), wherein the State respondents expressed its intention to implement the policy decision regarding allowing the cross transfer of group-C & D staff between the Lower Dibang Valley district and Dibang Valley district by maintaining a single cadre. On the basis of the aforesaid assurance of the Government, the aforementioned writ petition was allowed on 11.8.2005 providing that "since the respondents on principle have accepted the cross transfer of group-C & D staff between the two districts, they shall implement the same as expeditiously as possible considering the facts that the judgment, which has attained its finality was delivered about 8 months back. 5. In order to implement the modalities of 23.2.2005, the Government issued order No. DAD-14/2005 dated 9.11.2005 conveying its decision that a single cadre shall be maintained in group-C & D staff of the soft and hard areas and the inter-district transfer shall be done by the Divisional Commissioner (East). Accordingly, the Government issued an order dated 15.6.2007, which was published in the Extraordinary Gazette of Arunachal Pradesh, announcing its new scheme for bifurcation of joint ministerial cadre of Lower Dibang Valley and Dibang Valley districts and on the basis of modalities recommended in the joint meeting of Deputy Commissioners on 22.3.2005, replacing the earlier "as is where is" policy by the new scheme which would be implemented by the nodal department, i.e., the District Administration Department. The new scheme introduced the concept of allotting marks on a scale of "0-100" with a new expression "middle belt", The expression "soft belt" has been omitted. 6. The above new scheme of 15.6.2007 was challenged by the Lower Dibang Valley District Ministerial Employees Association, Roing and its members i.e. the present writ petitioners by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No. 263(AP)/2007 and the same was disposed of by a judgment dated 14.5.2008 with a direction that the scheme dated 15.6.2007 notified on the transfer and posting of ministerial staff of the two bifurcated soft and hard districts would be implemented only after an appropriate clarification is issued by the Government with regard to those areas which should construe as "middle belt" for allotment of marks under the impugned order dated 15.6.2007. Subsequently, the State respondents filed a Review Petition No. 22(AP)/2008 in respect of order dated 14.5.2008 passed in WP(C) 263(AP)/2007 making a prayer that the reference of terms "middle belt" in OM dated 15.6.2007 be corrected as "soft belt". Subsequently, the State respondents filed a Review Petition No. 22(AP)/2008 in respect of order dated 14.5.2008 passed in WP(C) 263(AP)/2007 making a prayer that the reference of terms "middle belt" in OM dated 15.6.2007 be corrected as "soft belt". The said review application was disposed of providing that "if that be the correct position, obviously, the direction given by the Court on 14.5.2008 to 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 15.6.2007 be done" would be wholly unnecessary. 7. In respect of specification of such areas, the respondents made a grievance that the Government did not take steps in time to implement the new Scheme of 15.6.2007 and as such, the present private respondents filed WP(C) 4535 of 2008. It was disposed of vide order dated 14.11.2008 directing the Government to implement the Scheme of 15.6.2007 within six months from 14.11.2008 and thereafter, the Government issued clarification as regard, "middle belt" vide order dated 23.6.2009 whereby the inter district transfer of the present petitioners and the private respondents has been made and issued by the Commissioner (District Administration), Government of Arunnachal Pradesh. The present petitioners who have been transferred from "soft area", Roing to "hard area", Anini challenge this order. 8. Rule was issued in the present case on 17.8.2009. Thereafter, the present petitioners filed the Misc. Case 142(AP)/2009 praying for grant of interim order staying the impugned order dated 23.6.2009 and WT Fax message dated 2.12.2009 and this Court by an order dated 18.12.2009 directed to maintain status quo by the parties in respect of the places of posting of the writ petitioners and the private respondents. 9. I have heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Ms. G. Deka, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. T. Chutia, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent Nos. 5 to 15. 10. Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, after filing of the writ petition, obtained certain documents through RTI, which have been filed by an additional affidavit. 1 to 4 and Mr. T. Chutia, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent Nos. 5 to 15. 10. Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, after filing of the writ petition, obtained certain documents through RTI, which have been filed by an additional affidavit. As per the records obtained from the RTI, the transfer order has been made as per the decision taken in the scrutiny and counselling committee meeting held on 20.9.2007. The said committee awarded marks to implement the new scheme dated 15.6.2007 taking into consideration of posting in "middle belt", i.e., places like Hunli, Desali, Krunli, Arzoo, etc., of undivided Dibang Valley district. Hunli and Desali now fall under Lower Dibang Valley district. According to him, the "middle belt" is hard posting and if the service tenure of the petitioners, who worked at "middle belt" are counted as "hard posting", then there is anomaly in the marking/awarding marks; in other words, he means to say that the respondent authorities while awarding marks failed to consider the service tenure of the petitioners worked in the hard posting inasmuch as no counselling was done as per the modalities. Moreover, the marks have been awarded unilaterally without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners that the "middle belt" actually meant "hard belt" which could be traced from the note sheet containing approval order of impugned transfer and posting order (Annexure-A to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioners) wherein, at Para-16, it is noted that in the undivided Dibang Valley district, the. Sub-Divisional Headquarters, Hunli and its circles like Desali/Krunli/Arzoo, etc., are only known as "middle belt" and though the area is known as "middle belt", the entire area is under the hard posting area. The present petitioners, therefore, according to Mr. Tiwari, should be treated as employees of the "hard belt". 11. It is further submitted that the State Government subsequently filed a review petition No. 22(AP)/2008 in WP(C) 263(AP)/2007 and got it corrected that the "middle belt" actually meant "soft belt". But from the aforesaid note sheet, it would appear that the Government instructed the Senior Government Advocate to file a review petition to get it clarified that the "middle belt" is considered as "hard belt". But from the aforesaid note sheet, it would appear that the Government instructed the Senior Government Advocate to file a review petition to get it clarified that the "middle belt" is considered as "hard belt". There are contradictory stands regarding "middle belt" but the said contradiction can be resolved, if one takes into consideration the Government policy/guidelines dated 1.7.2005 (Appendix-A) indicating the places of soft and hard posting. In the said Appendix-A, Sl. No. 9, Dibang Valley district, only Roing and Dambuk have been shown as "soft posting" and other places namely, Anibi, Krunli, Anchih, Desali, Etalin and Hunli fall under "hard posting". All these places shown in the hard posting have been shown as "middle belt". Therefore, all these places shown in the "middle belt" should be treated as hard posting and there should not be any confusion and controversy. So also, there should not be any confusion and controversy that the petitioners have been serving in the hard areas. 12. Besides, it is submitted that the Government constituted a Scrutiny and Counselling Committee vide order dated 16.6.2007 with the Secretary (District Administration), Government of Arunachal Pradesh as Chairman, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley District, Anini, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Lower Dibang Valley District, Roing and District Medical Officer, Roing or Anini as members. The said committee is required to draw up the list of employees to be allocated to each of the district Lower Dibang Valley and Dibang Valley on bifurcation of the cadre for implementing the new scheme of the Government dated 15.6.2007. But from the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 7.6.2007 (Annexure-II to the additional affidavit-in-opposition to the rejoinder filed on behalf of the private respondent Nos. 5 to 15), it is found that the cross transfer of ministerial staff was approved on the basis of the report prepared by a 4 Member Committee headed by Deputy Commissioner as Chairman and Dr. R.C. Ahdhukia, SMO, i/c DMO and N. Wangen, EAC and L. Baby i/c Head Assistant as members. The Government order dated 16.6.2007, for constituting the scrutiny and counselling committee has been violated inasmuch as the committee was headed by a Deputy Commissioner, EAC and one Office Head Assistant. The scrutiny and assessment made by the said committee cannot be accepted as the said committee is not a valid committee. Mr. The Government order dated 16.6.2007, for constituting the scrutiny and counselling committee has been violated inasmuch as the committee was headed by a Deputy Commissioner, EAC and one Office Head Assistant. The scrutiny and assessment made by the said committee cannot be accepted as the said committee is not a valid committee. Mr. L. Baby, i/c Head Assistant, who was a member of the said committee, is private respondent No. 7 in the present writ petition and as such, he is an interested party. The impugned transfer order cannot be acted upon for the aforesaid illegality and irregularity committed by the respondent authorities and as such, the same should be quashed and set aside. 13. Mr. Chutia, learned Counsel appearing for private respondent Nos. 5 to 15 raises the preliminary issue of res judicata inasmuch as the present petitioners filed WP(C) 3134 of 2004 and WP(C) 3156 of 2004, which were dismissed by a common judgment and order dated 23.12.2004 and their writ appeals filed against the said judgment and order were also dismissed in limine. The SLP filed by them was also dismissed by the Apex Court. The present petitioners by way of filing present writ petition, although challenged the impugned order dated 23.6.2009, in fact raised the similar issue and as such, the present writ petition should be dismissed with costs. To bring home these submissions, Mr. Chutia, refers to Sardar Estates v. Atma Ram Properties (P.) Ltd. (2009) 6 SCC 609 , wherein the appeals and SLP have been dismissed holding that several rounds of litigation on frivolous grounds cannot be approved to prevent abuse of process of the court. 14. Supporting the new scheme dated 15.6.2007, it is submitted that it was announced for equitable transfer and posting so that no Group-C & D employees of the two districts are required to serve in the hard posting for the entire service career. By challenging the transfer and posting order, the petitioners are trying to get themselves posted/retained in the establishment of Dibang Valley district, i.e., the soft area permanently and for all time to come and thereby to deprive the private respondents of their chance of being posted in the soft area. There is, according to Mr. By challenging the transfer and posting order, the petitioners are trying to get themselves posted/retained in the establishment of Dibang Valley district, i.e., the soft area permanently and for all time to come and thereby to deprive the private respondents of their chance of being posted in the soft area. There is, according to Mr. Chutia, no doubt that the private respondents are serving in the hard belt/area namely, Anini for a long period of time and they deserved to be posted at soft places. The petitioners have been serving in the soft area and as soon as they have been transferred/posted in the hard area, in place of the private respondents, they are making attempt to show/establish that they have been serving in the "middle belt", which is treated as hard posting by making reference to noting in the Government file and policy guidelines dated 1.7.2007. Noting in the Government file and the guidelines dated 1.7.2005 should be ignored since the State respondents in Review Petition No. 22(AP)/2008 made statement on oath that the "middle belt" is meant "soft area" which was accepted by the court and passed necessary orders making necessary correction in the judgment. It is also submitted that there may be irregularity in the constitution of scrutiny committee but the list of employees affected by bifurcation was prepared after going through the service record of the employees concerned and as such, the minor irregularities cannot invalidate the transfer and posting order dated 23.6.2009. 15. The further submission of Mr. Chutia is that the expression of "middle belt" in the scheme is to be understood as soft area in contrast to the terms hard area. The impugned order dated 23.6.2009 is nothing but a transfer order of Group-'C' employees, although it is connected with bifurcation of a district into two districts. The petitioners have no permanent heritable and absolute right to work at one place in the soft area and no one can put his/her right upon the authority to allow him/her at his/her own choice of posting and it is the domain of the competent authority of the Government as to how and whether the transfer/posting order should be made and given effect to. In this regard, he would refer to a decision of the Division Bench in Ashim Kr. Baruah and Ors. v. Tanushyam Borgohain and Ors. In this regard, he would refer to a decision of the Division Bench in Ashim Kr. Baruah and Ors. v. Tanushyam Borgohain and Ors. (1998) 3 GLT 183, wherein after relying on several decisions rendered by the Apex Court in regard to transfer and posting of Government employees, held that the departmental instructions no doubt are required to be uniformly followed, but they cannot be made the basis for enforcement in a writ petition as they are not enforceable in a writ petition. By this, Mr. Chutia means to say that there may be some irregularities in the constitution of scrutiny committee, who prepared the list of employees required to be transferred/posted as per the Government scheme but it should not stand on the way of giving effect to the impugned transfer order. Regarding scope and power of the writ court in exercising the judicial review in the matter of transfer/posting he cities a number of cases namely: (i) Sheo Balak Singh v. Union of India and Ors. (2007) 1 GLJ 534, wherein it is held that it is for administrator and not for court to determine where a particular officer should be posted. Courts neither possess expertise that would be required for such determination nor court can be expected to be well versed with multifarious considerations that are required to go into decision making process. In the said case, it was also held that the concept of any "tenure" of a civil servant in any particular location is a misnomer and there is no vested right in any civil servant to be posted in any particular location for any fixed duration. Concept of tenure has to be understood in the context of a minimum period of service in particular station. However, exigencies of administrative process may require retention or continuation of an incumbent with a longer length of service and transfer of an incumbent with a shorter tenure. (ii) Dilip Kr. Saikia v. State of Assam and Ors. (2006) GLJ 29. In that case a transfer order was passed before completion of 3 years in a station without approval of the Chief Minister, yet it was held that guidelines are not mandatory but directory. (iii) Kalyan Kr. Sarkar v. Alok Kanti Paul Choudhury and Ors. (ii) Dilip Kr. Saikia v. State of Assam and Ors. (2006) GLJ 29. In that case a transfer order was passed before completion of 3 years in a station without approval of the Chief Minister, yet it was held that guidelines are not mandatory but directory. (iii) Kalyan Kr. Sarkar v. Alok Kanti Paul Choudhury and Ors. (2006) 3 GLJ 215wherein, it is also held by a Division Bench of this Court that guidelines and transfer policies having no statutory backing are merely instructions and cannot be enforced in courts of law. (iv) Vijay Lakhmi v. P.U. and Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 440 wherein, it is held that when a policy decision is taken by the State and the rules are framed accordingly, it cannot be termed as arbitrary or unjust and the court cannot sit in appeal against the policy decision of the Government. (v) State of U.P and Anr. v. Siya Ram and Anr. (2004) 7 SCC 405 wherein, it is held that transfer is not only an incident of service, but a condition of service as well and is necessary in public, interest and efficiency in public administration and no government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice. It is also held that where a transfer is in public interest, it is to be adjudicated by the Court on the basis of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. (vi) Union of India and Ors. v. H.N. Kirtania (1989) 3 SCC 445 wherein, it is also held that the transfer order made on administrative grounds or in public interest, should not be interfered with unless found illegal on the ground of violation of statutory rules or on the ground of mala fides. (vii) Ruokuolhoulie Angami v. State of Nagaland and Ors. (1997) 3 GLR 1 wherein, it is held that for cancellation/modification or keeping in abeyance of transfer order passed in public interest must be supported with sufficient reasons necessitating for passing such orders while processing the transfer order, various factors being the duration of the stationing of one officer in a particular station for a long time. (viii) B.S.N.L. and Ors. v. Nikhil Nandi Majumdar and Ors. (viii) B.S.N.L. and Ors. v. Nikhil Nandi Majumdar and Ors. (2007) 1 GLT 152wherein, it is held that when one has already been released on transfer, there cannot be any order to rejoin giving rise to a situation in which the incumbent can again rejoin in his original place of posting. 16. Ms. Deka, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate makes here submissions on the basis of joint affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It is submitted that the scheme dated 15.6.2007 was formulated with the approval of the Cabinet and the District Administration Department is the nodal department for implementing the said Scheme. The Deputy Commissioner is only the cadre controlling authority of the concerned district and he cannot make any order for inter district/cross transfer from one district to another. The Commissioner (District Administration), being the head of the district administration department, is the competent authority to make inter district transfer order and as such, the impugned transfer order is not illegal. In regard to the terms "middle belt" used in the Scheme, it is submitted that it was wrongly shown as "middle belt" instead of "soft belt" and as such, in order to make correction to it, the State respondents filed a review petition, which was allowed by this Court and by virtue of the order dated 1.12.2008 passed in Review Petition No. 22(AP)/2008, the "middle belt" was corrected as "soft belt" and the State Government issued necessary corrigendum to this effect vide No. DDA-37 (Vol-II) 2007 dated 24.7.2009. 17. It is further submitted that a committee was constituted by the Government under the Chairmanship of Commissioner (District Administration) which drew up the list of employees to be allocated to each district and on the basis of the said list, the Cabinet approved the transfer/posting of staff between the Roing and Anini. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by the official respondents inasmuch as while preparing the list, the service record of both the petitioners and private respondents were taken into account, particularly, in regard to their length of service rendered in the hard and soft posting. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by the official respondents inasmuch as while preparing the list, the service record of both the petitioners and private respondents were taken into account, particularly, in regard to their length of service rendered in the hard and soft posting. The Scheme of 15.6.2007 is fair and equitable and the transfer/posting made by the respondent authorities in pursuance to the aforesaid Scheme cannot be questioned by the petitioners as they have accrued no indefeasible, heritable and absolute right to work at Roing, which is regarded as soft place, for all time to come. 18. The first and foremost aspect to be considered in this case is whether there exist places identified or notified as "middle belt" as introduced in the Scheme of 15.6.2007. It must be noted that before this Scheme was introduced, the State Government adopted policy guidelines on transfer and posting of all categories of officers/officials including the A.P.C.S officers in Arunachal Pradesh. The said policy was approved by the Cabinet and it was circulated vide No. Apptt-12/186 dated 1.7.2005 under the signature of the Chief Secretary to the State of Arunachal Pradesh. As per the said circular,, there would be only "hard posting" and "soft posting". The term 'hard posting' and 'soft posting', in common parlance are being understood as "hard belt" area and "soft belt" area respectively. The term "middle belt" has not been used in the said circular. The aforesaid policy/guidelines are taken to be still in force. None of the parties has contended or placed any materials that the same has been withdrawn or cancelled. Both the parties, according to their pleadings, insist on enforcement/implementation by the Government Departments/authorities in the matter of transfer and posting of staff. This, therefore, justifies reproduction: No. Apptt. 12/186 GOVERNMENT OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH APPOINTMENT DEPARTMENT Dated, Itanagar the 1st July, 2005. Sub: Policy guidelines regarding transfer and posting of all categories of officers including the A.P.C.S officers in Arunachal Pradesh. 1. In the absence of any specifies guidelines or all-over instruction of the Government in regards to the transfer and posting of various officers in the district and outpost no uniform practice existed for posting and transfer of officer. Frequent transfer and position of officers and non-compliance of Government orders by the concerned officers posed a problem in implementing transfer orders issued by the Government. 2. Frequent transfer and position of officers and non-compliance of Government orders by the concerned officers posed a problem in implementing transfer orders issued by the Government. 2. With a view to overcome those difficulties and to have a rational policy of posting and transfer, the following decisions have been taken by the Cabinet. These will apply to future postings and transfer of officers working under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh and may be followed scrupulously: (i) The remote localities with lack of communications, medical and education facilities are termed as hard posting and the places well communicated with roads/jeepable tracks having medical and education facilities are terms as soft posting. (ii) The minimum tenure of posting in a remote area, not, well communicated by the roads, Air or Water ways shall be 2 years. (iii) The minimum tenure of posting in a remote area, not well communicated by roads, Air or Water-way shall be 2 years. (iv) It shall be compulsory for all categories of officers to be a tenure in a hard/remote area. (v) The transfer/posting cases shall be proceeds and finalised by concerned Department by the end of March every year. (vi) The transfer/posting orders shall be issued by April, i.e., after the financial year ending, so that implementation of plan scheme and budget expenditure are not affected by such orders. (vii) The officers so posted/transferred shall be taken charge of their respective places of posting by April end, i.e., before the onset of the monsoon after the school examination of their children. (viii) The Head of officers concerned shall relievers the officers so transferred by first half an April. (ix) Unless where are good and all sufficient reasons, no officers shall be distracted during their prescribed tenure. (x) However, an officer two years before his retirement may be accommodated in his choice of posting so that he can settle this post retirement matter timely. 3. A list of hard and soft places approved by the Cabinet is enclosed at Appendix "A". Sd/- S.C. Vaish, Chief Secretary, Government of Aruanchal Pradesh, Itanagar. 19. The Appendix "A" to the above guidelines is the list of places indicating soft and hard posting. Item 9 of the said appendix relates to Dibang Valley district. The places namely, 37-Anibi, 38-Kronli, 39-Anelih, 40-Desali, 41-Etalin and 41(A)-Hunli come under "hard posting" while 47-Roing and 48-Dambuk come under "soft posting". 19. The Appendix "A" to the above guidelines is the list of places indicating soft and hard posting. Item 9 of the said appendix relates to Dibang Valley district. The places namely, 37-Anibi, 38-Kronli, 39-Anelih, 40-Desali, 41-Etalin and 41(A)-Hunli come under "hard posting" while 47-Roing and 48-Dambuk come under "soft posting". The State Government, as discussed earlier, has already clarified that the term "middle belt" is a misnomer and it was wrongly used, which should be read as "soft area". It is submitted by Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioners that the order of this Court, due to filing of the review petition by the learned Senior Government Advocate, is contrary to the instructions furnished by the Government to the effect that places in the undivided Dibang Valley district, the Sub-divisional Headquarter Hunli and its circles Desali, Kronli, Arzoo, etc., situated in between Roing and Anini are commonly known as "middle belt" though all those circles are not hard posting area and marks were awarded accordingly for transfer and posting under the new Scheme. The veracity of this allegation has been verified from the Government file No. DAD-37/2007, as produced by Ms. Deka, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate. It is found that a letter No. DAD-37/07 dated 4th August, 2008 was written by one Shri R. Boje, Under Secretary (DA), Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar addressed to the Senior Government Advocate, Gauhati High Court Permanent Bench, Naharlagun, which is reproduced below: GOVERNMENT OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT AP SECRETARIAT:: ITANAGAR To The Senior Government Advocate, Gauhati High Court Permanent Bench, Naharlagun. Sub: Review Petition. Sir, I am directed to refer Gauhati High Court Permanent bench, Naharlagun's judgment on WP(C) No. 334/AP/07 and WP(C) No. 263/AP/07 in which the Court directed the State Government to issue an appropriate clarification with regard to those areas which should be construed as middle belts for allotment of marks under the impugned order dated 15.6.2007. In this connection, I am to inform you that as per Government policy issued vide No. APPTT-12/96 dated 1.7.1986 (copy enclosed) there is only Hard and Soft places and no place declared as middle belt for posting officers. In the unvdivided Dibang Valley Distt., the Sub-Divisional HQ Hunli and its Circles Desali/Kronli/Arzoo, etc., which are situated in between Roing and Anini are commonly known as middle belt, though all these circles are under Hard Posting area. In the unvdivided Dibang Valley Distt., the Sub-Divisional HQ Hunli and its Circles Desali/Kronli/Arzoo, etc., which are situated in between Roing and Anini are commonly known as middle belt, though all these circles are under Hard Posting area. While awarding marks to the officials those served in the above circles before bifurcation of Lower Dibang Valley were considered as hard belt and awarded marks accordingly. Hence, you are requested to file a review petition on the matter to the hon'ble High Court, Permanent bench, Naharlagun to clarify the matter and get a revised judgment as early as possible enable the Government to implement transfer/posting of ministerial staff between Dibang Valley and Lower Dibang Valley Districts. Yours faithfully, Sd/-(R. Boje) Under Secretary (DA), Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. From the said file, it is found that Shri R. Boje, Under Secretary (DA) was authorised and deputed by the Commissioner (DA), Government of Arunachal Pradesh to sign the review petition on behalf of the Government. A copy of the review petition is available in the said file. Averments have been made specifically in para 7 of the review petition that "it is admitted fact that in office memorandum dated 15.6.2007, inadvertently "middle belt" has been inserted instead of "soft belt" but same has to be harmoniously interpreted or accepted soft belt, as per the Government guidelines". 20. Reading the communication/letter dated 4th August, 2008, with averments made in the review petition, it appears that the submission of Mr. Tiwari has a sound bearing with the records. As per the record, factually the Sub-Divisional Headquarter, Hunli and its circles Desali/Kronli/Arzoo, etc., situated in between Roing and Anini, fall under hard posting area, even before the Dibang Valley district was bifurcated but while a responsible officer like an Under Secretary, who was well aware about this fact and who apprised the Senior Government Advocate through his letter dated 4th August, 2008, signed the review petition as drafted by the Senior Government Advocate contrary to the Government instructions, are beyond anybodies comprehension. On the basis of the aforesaid review petition, the court's earlier order stood corrected to read the "middle belt" as "soft belt", which is not correct factually and as per the Government records. Government has taken no further steps to correct this position. Normally, Court's order is to be followed but this would cause prejudice to the present petitioners for no fault on their part. Government has taken no further steps to correct this position. Normally, Court's order is to be followed but this would cause prejudice to the present petitioners for no fault on their part. Once the petitioners, as per the review order, are treated to be staff serving presently under the "soft belt", they have to make room for the private respondents, who are serving in the hard belt (?) as per the present Scheme. Is there any way out to reconcile this position? The answer may be found from the steps/process taken by the respondent authorities before issuing the impugned order. As stated earlier, the State respondents vide order dated 16.6.2007 constituted a scrutiny and counselling committee to finalize the list for two districts to be submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Anini for issuance of formal orders. A list (Annexure-12 to the additional affidavit/rejoinder filed on behalf of the private respondents No. 5 to 15) was prepared with the help of one Mr. L. Baby, i/c Head Assistant, respondent No. 7 in the present petition, which was signed by the Deputy Commissioner as Chairman and Dr. R.C. Ahdhukia, SMO, i/c DMO, N. Wangen, EAC and L. Baby i/c Head Assistant as members. 21. Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioners raised serious objections that the scrutiny and counselling committee was not constituted as per the requirements laid down in Government's order dated 16.6.2007 and that the list prepared by such an irregular committee with one of the private respondents, cannot be accepted by the petitioners. I am not prepared to accept the submission. Here is a confusion in the mind of Mr. Tiwari that the said committee with private respondent No. 7, as a member, was constituted only to draw and prepare the list and place the same before the scrutiny and counselling committee constituted as per the order dated 16.6.2007. I have gone through the file No. DAD-37/07 (Vol-III) as produced by Ms. Deka, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate in this respect. It is found that after the receipt of the list from the concerned Deputy Commissioner, a meeting of the scrutiny and counselling committee was held on 31.7.2007 chaired by the Secretary (DA), Government of Arunachal Pradesh in his office in presence of other members. Namely, Shri Duyu Ranka, Deputy Commissioner, Anini, Shri D. Kamduk, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Roing and Dr. A. Yirang, DMO, Roing. Namely, Shri Duyu Ranka, Deputy Commissioner, Anini, Shri D. Kamduk, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Roing and Dr. A. Yirang, DMO, Roing. The minutes of the said meeting is available in the above file. The same is reproduced to remove the above confusion and to clarify the position: MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 31.7.2007 AT 1100 HRS. IN THE OFFICE CHAMBER OF THE SECRETARY (DA). A meeting of the Scrutiny and Counselling Committee, to draw up the list of Employees to be allocated to each of the districts of Dibang Vallely and Lower Dibang Valley District on bifurcation was held under the Chairmanship of the Secretary (DA) on 31st July, 2007. The following members were present in the meeting. 1. Shri Duyu Ranka, DC Anini. 2. Shri Duly Kamduk, ADC Roing. 3. Dr. A.T. Yirang, DMO, Roing. As per the new scheme formulated by the 0 & M Department vide No. AR.32/07 dated 15.6.2007 in place of "As is where is policy" both the Deputy Commissioners had submitted a list of employees with allotment of marks on the basis of service rendered in hard and middle belts by each employees till date. After thorough discussion and scrutiny of the list, the board decided that the cadre bifurcation will be taken up for those employees appointed prior to bifurcation of the district and the Deputy Commissioners will prepare a fresh list of employees working under them, with marks according to their service in hard belt up to 16.12.2001, i.e., up to the date of bifurcation of the district and this will followed by a district wise scrutiny Committee to be held under the Chairmanship of ADC/DMO to counsel the employees of their own districts. The next meeting of the full scrutiny committee will be held in the first week of September 2007. The date and venue of the same will be intimated in due course. The meeting ended with vote of thanks from the Chair. Sd/- Gonesh Koyu, IAS Secretary (DA) Government of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 22. Another meeting of the scrutiny and counselling committee was held under the Chairmanship of Secretary (DA) at Roing on 20.9.2007 in presence of other members. The modalities of inter district transfer was determined in the said meeting. The minutes of the said meeting as found in the above file is reproduced for the benefit of all concerned. 22. Another meeting of the scrutiny and counselling committee was held under the Chairmanship of Secretary (DA) at Roing on 20.9.2007 in presence of other members. The modalities of inter district transfer was determined in the said meeting. The minutes of the said meeting as found in the above file is reproduced for the benefit of all concerned. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF SECRUTINY AND COUNSELLING COMMITTEE HELD UNDER THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF SHRI GONESH KOYU. SECRETARY (DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION) AT ROING ON 20.9.2007. The following officers attended in the meeting. (1) Shri Duyu Ranka, D.C., Anini (2) Shri D. Kamduk, ADC, Roing. (3) Dr. A. Yirang, DMO, Roing. After thorough scrutiny of the list and discussion, the board decided to consider for inter-district transfer of 7(seven) UDCs and 7(seven) LDCs of both Roing and Anini according to their length of service in hard belt and marks secured as per notification. The cut off point was decided after those securing highest marks as per the marking indicated by O.M. No. AR-32/2007 dated 15.6.2007 and was calculated from top-down in case of Dibang Valley District and those securing lowest marks from Lower Dibang Valley District from bottom up-wards coincided. Further, a provision of 10% (3 UDC and 3 LDC) out of Roing strength has been kept reserved for deputation to accommodate deserving cases amongst the staff of hard belt, i.e., Anini and the deputation period will be for 2(two) years on rotational basis as indicated in the above office memorandum. The Deputy Commissioner, Anini will approve the name of staff whose cases would be considered for deputation to Roing. Detailed particulars are annexed at I to II. The cases of husband and wife serving under the D.A. have been taken up jointly and adjusted as per entitlement. The cases of husband and wife serving in other departments have not been considered as indicated in the notification to ensure their joint posting. The cases of Drivers/peon/Dak Runners and Pis have not been taken up as Drivers fall under technical category and Pis are appointed as per their local expertise. In cases of peon and D/Rs most of them are promoted from the rank of AL Cs in case of Dibang Valley District and, hence, they have been already given a benefit. 23. The cases of Drivers/peon/Dak Runners and Pis have not been taken up as Drivers fall under technical category and Pis are appointed as per their local expertise. In cases of peon and D/Rs most of them are promoted from the rank of AL Cs in case of Dibang Valley District and, hence, they have been already given a benefit. 23. From the list submitted before the scrutiny and counselling committee for its consideration for inter-district transfer, as is made available in the file, it is found that it includes the names of both the petitioners and the private respondents who are serving at Anini, Hunli, Etalin, Desali, Anelih, Kronli and Arzoo. Those places have been shown/treated as hard belt in the said list. This was done so ignoring the order passed in Review Petition for treating these places as "soft belt". Thus, it is found that the Government treated all those places as hard belt posting in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners, cannot therefore, make any grievance that they were not treated as employees belonging to hard belt. The scrutiny and counselling committee did its consideration for inter-district transfer in respect of the petitioners ignoring the services rendered by them in the "hard belt". On further scrutiny of the said list, it also reveals that the total tenure of service of the petitioners in hard belt ranges from 1 year to 9 years 7months only as against the range of 11 years 8 months to 23 years in respect of the private respondents in hard belt. Apparently, the private respondents have rendered longer tenure of service in the hard belt and accordingly they received priority for being posted at soft places over the petitioners. The submission of Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioners that the impugned transfer and posting order is vitiated due to active participation of the office Head Assistant, respondent No. 7 in the present petition, is of no consequence or avail for the simple reason that the officers concerned, as Chairman and members of the scrutiny and counselling committee, verified the list from the service records of the employees concerned and the said office Head Assistant was not in a position to influence the high/higher officers associated with the said committee. The impugned transfer and posting order cannot be said to be in violation of the norms set in the new policy for awarding marks if the length of services of the private respondents are, ex facie, found to be longer than the period served by the petitioners in the "hard belt". This Court in exercising its power of judicial review is not to examine the correctness of the decision taken by the respondent authorities in transferring the employees to places in "hard belt", for it would amount to exercise of power of an appellate authority. The principle of law in this regard is well settled, firm, loud and clear requiring no more citations of authorities. It would, however, be beneficial to refer to State of Rajasthan v. H. V. Hotels (P.) Ltd. (2007) 2 SCC 468 , wherein it is held that if the Government order is not vitiated by any error apparent on the face of the record, it is not open to interference by the High Courts in judicial review. In Jagdish Mandal v. The State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517, the Apex Court, while discussing the purpose and scope of judicial review, mandated that judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationalities, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Further, it was clarified that its purpose is to check whether the choice or decision is made "lawfully and not to check whether a choice or decision is sound". 24. This is a special transfer to meet a peculiar situation and administrative exigency. Probably, that is why it has been named as 'equitable transfer' by the Government to give equal or fair treatment in the spirit of law of equity, so as to avoid possible injustices in the matter of transfer and posting. It is an universally accepted position that equity does not create any new legal right or change any existing ones for either party. If this principle is accepted, it can be said that the criteria of awarding 'marks' bearing with the length of service in the 'hard belt', under the new Scheme introduced by an administrative circular/guidelines without any statutory force, has created no new right; legal or otherwise, for the parties in this case to claim posting at a place of his choice. Equity must prevail over all short comings. Let it be so in this case also. 25. Equity must prevail over all short comings. Let it be so in this case also. 25. On examination and consideration made as above, I find that the decision has been made lawfully by the respondent authorities in issuing the impugned transfer order and no such arbitrariness, irrationalities, unreasonableness, biasness or mala fides have been committed by the respondent authorities in issuing the impugned transfer order that may call for interference by this Court. It, therefore, makes me hesitant to interfere with the impugned order, rather emboldens me to say "no" to interference. I must say in clear term that the petitioners have failed to make out any case of judicial interference for which; the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed