Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 889 (GAU)

Mori Riba v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors.

2014-09-18

A.K.GOSWAMI, K.SREEDHAR RAO

body2014
K Sreedhar Rao; ACJ 1. The appellant was working as Additional District Conservator of Forests in Lower Dibang Valley district. It is said that a request was made by a Parliamentary Secretary of that area to the Hon'ble Chief Minister for posting of one Aduk Paron as Conservator of Forests in the place of the appellant. The said letter of request is produced as Annexure-5. The contents of the letter read as under: “Subject : Posting of Shri Aduk Paron, DCF. Shri Aduk Paron, DCF, who has been presently rendering his best services at Anni Social Forestry Division as DFO and nearing completion of his normal tenure of posting in Anni itself is required to be transferred and posted to soft place where he can attend his very best services for the development of the division and the people as well as being a senior DCF should be placed in a division where he could explore all his experiences and ability to develop the division in all fronts for the larger interest of the Department of Forest and in the interest of public service. In the light of the above, I would personally request Hon'ble Chief Minister to kindly consider transfer of Shri Aduk Paron, DCF from Anini and posted him to Lower Dibang Forest Division, Roing to enable him to provide his best services and experiences for overall development of the division. Hon'ble Chief Minister may kindly accord necessary approval for posting of Shri Aduk Paron, DCF to Lower Dibang Valley Forest Division, Roing in the interest of public service. Sd/- (Kumar Waii) Parliamentary Secretary (RWD/S&T)” 2. The orders were passed transferring the appellant to Anini in the same district and Aduk Paron is posted in the place of the appellant. The appellant objected the transfer as mala fide and pre-mature and filed a writ petition. Interim orders of stay were granted. In view of the Court's order, the transfer order was kept under suspension. Because of the suspension order, the writ petition came to be closed as infructuous. The Government again revived its earlier order of transfer by order, dated 15-07-2014. The appellant aggrieved by the said order, filed the writ petition challenging that the order of transfer is mala fide for political consideration and that there is no fresh consideration on the part of the Government to affect the transfer. The Government again revived its earlier order of transfer by order, dated 15-07-2014. The appellant aggrieved by the said order, filed the writ petition challenging that the order of transfer is mala fide for political consideration and that there is no fresh consideration on the part of the Government to affect the transfer. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition; hence, this appeal. 3. It is the contention of the appellant that Annexure 5 clearly suggests political motive for the transfer. The Minister might have said that the private respondent is more competent however converse cannot be read to mean that the appellant is not competent to hold the post at the place in question. It is also said that the private respondent before completion of tenure period, he was sought to be shifted to the place where the appellant is working. The State has not applied its mind while passing the impugned order by which earlier order of transfer has been revived. 4. The contention of the counsel for the appellant that the order reviving the order of transfer is vitiated with mala fide does not appear to be valid. It may be that the MLA made a request for placing a particular person of his constituency to have proper development of the social forestry. The order of transfer of the appellant is revived at the fag end of his tenure. The cancellation of the order of transfer would virtually amount to permitting the appellant in continuing the post beyond the period of tenure permitted. As of now, the appellant has completed his tenure at the place of his post; therefore, there does not appear to be any illegality in the order of transfer of the appellant in the same district. Accordingly, the appeal and the miscellaneous case as well as the caveat are disposed of.