JUDGMENT Heard Mr. D. K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. K. Bora, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam who has produced the record. Also heard Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 5. 2. Both petitioner and respondent No. 5 are serving as Forest Range Officer (also referred to as Forest Ranger) in the Forest Department, Govt. of Assam. 3. By the impugned notification dated 02.04.2015 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Environment & Forests Department, petitioner has been transferred from In-charge Guwahati Range under Kamrup East Division to In-charge Protection Range under Kamrup East Division whereas respondent No. 5 has been transferred from In-charge, Sonapur Range to In-charge, Guwahati Range under Kamrup East Division. 4. Petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid notification dated 02.04.2015 in so far it relates to his transfer. Challenge has been made on the ground that he has been subjected to frequent transfer and that by the impugned notification, he has been transferred within a period of 2 (two) years which requires approval of Hon’ble Chief Minister. No approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister has been obtained. It is also contended that there is no public interest involved in the impugned transfer. 5. Respondent No. 5 in his affidavit has contended that petitioner was subjected to a departmental proceeding whereafter Govt. of Assam has taken decision to recover an amount of Rs.31,03,366.94 from the petitioner. In this connection, WP(C) No. 2686 of 2015 is pending. It is contended that impugned transfer has been necessitated because of administrative exigencies and in the interest of public service. No legal or fundamental right of the petitioner has been violated by the impugned transfer order. 6. Mr. D. K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no departmental proposal was initiated to effect transfer of petitioner and respondent No. 5. Transfer order has been issued at the instance of the departmental Minister. No approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister has been obtained though the petitioner has been transferred within 2 (two) years of his last transfer. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions:- 2009 (2) GLT 956 (Toheli Sumi Vs State of Nagaland & Ors.), 2010 (2) GLT 786 (Sunit Kumar Bardoloi Vs State of Assam & Ors). 7. Learned Govt. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions:- 2009 (2) GLT 956 (Toheli Sumi Vs State of Nagaland & Ors.), 2010 (2) GLT 786 (Sunit Kumar Bardoloi Vs State of Assam & Ors). 7. Learned Govt. Advocate has produced the record and submits that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the impugned transfer since it is within the same division. Therefore, interference may not be justified. 8. Mr. Konwar, learned Sr. Counsel for respondent No. 5 besides reiterating the stand taken in the counter affidavit regarding the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner which has necessitated filing of a writ petition by the petitioner being WP(C) No. 2686/2015, submits that impugned transfer is a part of routine administrative measure and therefore no interference is called for. He submits that impugned order has been issued in the public interest. There is no violation of any statutory provision as well as any malafide in the impugned transfer of the petitioner. 9. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. Record produced has also been perused. 10. From a perusal of the record, it is seen that Sri Atuwa Munda, Minister, Environment & Forests issued an order on 02.04.2015 (page 88 of the file) to the Addl. Chief Secretary, Environment and Forests Department directing certain transfers and postings including that of petitioner and respondent No. 5. It was stated that the said transfers and postings may be made with immediate effect in the interest of public service. Addl. Chief Secretary was directed to issue the notification on the same day and that his prior approval may be taken later on. The aforesaid order of the Minister, Environment & Forests is quoted hereunder in its entirety:- “ No. MFT.5/2015/14 Dated the 2nd April, 2015 Additional Chief Secretary Environment & Forests Department In the interest of public service the following Transfer and Posting may be made with immediate effect. 1. Sri Ranjit Kumar Dutta, Forest Ranger, I/C Sonapur Range, Kamrup east Division is transferred and posted as I/C Guwahati Range under Kamrup East Division vice Sri Jiten Bora, Forests Ranger transferred. 2. Sri Jiten Bora, Forests Ranger, I/C Guwahati Range under Kamrup East Division is transferred and posted as I/C Protection Range under Kamrup East Division vice Sri B. K. Payeng, Forests Ranger transferred. 3. 2. Sri Jiten Bora, Forests Ranger, I/C Guwahati Range under Kamrup East Division is transferred and posted as I/C Protection Range under Kamrup East Division vice Sri B. K. Payeng, Forests Ranger transferred. 3. Sri B. K. Payeng, Forests Ranger, I/C Protection Range under Kamrup East Division is transferred and posted at SF Division Guwahati in place of Sri Dalim Das. 4. Sri Dalim Das, Forests Ranger attached with SF Division Guwahati is transferred and posted as I/C Sonapur Range, Kamrup East Division in place of Sri Ranjit Kumar Dutta. 5. Sri Arup Kr. Kalita, Forest Ranger, I/C Lumding Range, Nagaon South Division, Hojai is transferred and posted as I/C Rani Range under Kamrup East Division vice Sri Robin Baishya, Forests Ranger transferred. 6. Sri Robin Baishya, Forests Ranger, I/C Rani Range is transferred and posted as I/C Range Officer Burachapori Wildlife Sanctuary under Nagaon Wildlife Division. 7. Sri Madhab Dahal Forests Ranger, I/C Jagun Range, under Digboi Division is transferred and posted as I/C Lumding Range in place of Sri Arup Kr. Kalita. 8. Sri Sanjib Bordoloi, Forests Ranger, I/C Golaghat Range, under Golaghat Division is transferred and posted as I/C Dibrugarh Range, under Dibrugarh Division vice Sri Babul Baruah transferred. 9. Sri Babul Baruah, Forests Ranger, I/C Dibrugarh Range, is transferred and posted as I/C Joypur Range under Dibrugarh Division against the vacant post. 10. Sri Praneswar Das, Forests Ranger, I/C Sibsagar Range, is transferred and posted as I/C Golaghat Range under Golaghat Division in place of Sri Sanjib Bordoloi. Please issue notification by Today. The Prior approval of the undersign may take later on. (*DFO Digboi Div. shall make temporary arrangement for taking over of charge of Jagun Range by an attached Range Officer or Dy. Range Officer until further order. *All the Forests Ranger should immediately join and take over charge of respective Range.) (Atuwa Munda) Minister, Environment & Forests” 11. As directed, Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Environment and Forests Department issued the impugned notification on 02.04.2015 itself. The note sheet at page 42 indicates that the impugned notification was issued as per order of the departmental Minister and that ex-post-facto approval of the Minister was required to be obtained. The file was put up before the Minister on 08.04.2015. 12. of Assam, Environment and Forests Department issued the impugned notification on 02.04.2015 itself. The note sheet at page 42 indicates that the impugned notification was issued as per order of the departmental Minister and that ex-post-facto approval of the Minister was required to be obtained. The file was put up before the Minister on 08.04.2015. 12. On 09.04.2015, the departmental Minister put up a note before the Hon’ble Chief Minister as under:- “Hon’ble Chief Minister For better management of forests and wildlife and to effectively protect the forests/wildlife, it is felt that some of the officers in the rank of Forest Rangers need to be transferred from their existing place of posting. It may be pointed out that four Range Officers namely (1) Sri B. K. Payeng, (2) Sri Robin Baishya (3) Sri Jiten Bora and (4) Sri Ranjit Dutta have not completed two years in their present place of posting. However, of these four Range Officers, three Range Officers, namely (1) Sri B. K. Payeng, (2) Sri Robin Baishya and (3) Sri Jiten Bora are facing Departmental Proceedings which are yet to be finalized. In view of the above, ex-post –facto approval of the order may kindly be granted.” 13. It appears from the file that the Hon’ble Chief Minister put his signature on 24.04.2015 with the following remark “Seen”. 14. From a careful perusal of the file, it appears that there was no departmental proposal to initiate transfer of petitioner and respondent No. 5 or for that matter any of the other officers mentioned in the impugned notification. It was because of the order of the Minister dated 02.04.2015 that the said impugned notification was issued, that too, on the same day. A reading of the order of the Minister as extracted above would show that everything was decided/finalized by the Minister himself, only the official formality of issuing the notification in the official format remained, which was of course carried out on the same day as directed by the Minister. 15. From the note of the Minister dated 09.04.2015 addressed to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, it is seen that the transfers have been made “for better management of forests and wildlife and to effectively protect the forests/wildlife…”. 15. From the note of the Minister dated 09.04.2015 addressed to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, it is seen that the transfers have been made “for better management of forests and wildlife and to effectively protect the forests/wildlife…”. It is further seen that out of the 10 officers who have been transferred, 4 have not completed two years in their present places of posting which includes petitioner and respondent No. 5. Therefore, ex-post-facto approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister was sought for. It is evident from the file that such approval was not granted by the Chief Minister who simply remarked “Seen”. 16. Reasons given by the departmental Minister justifying the premature transfer of petitioner and respondent No. 5 may not merit serious attention for the simple reason that the file does not indicate any assessment made by the department to carry out transfers and postings of officers for better management of forests and wildlife or to effectively protect the forests/wildlife. Reasons as indicated above have simply been mentioned to justify what was already decided. 17. As already noticed above, the departmental Minister appeared to be in extreme haste while directing the Addl. Chief Secretary to issue the transfer notification on 02.04.2015 itself i.e. on the same day when he issued the order to the Addl. Chief Secretary. No justification is discernible from the record for the extreme urgency shown by the Minister. In Zenit Mataplast Private Limited Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2009) 10 SCC 388 , the Apex Court held that anything done in undue haste can be termed as arbitrary and cannot be condoned in law. In the present case, without any departmental proposal for transfer and posting of the concerned officials, the Minister suddenly issued the order dated 02.04.2015 directing the Addl. Chief Secretary to issue the transfer notification on the same day itself, which was accordingly issued. It was stated that his prior approval may be taken later on. Approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister was not taken. The undue haste shown by the departmental Minister certainly gives rise to the impression that it was not done keeping in mind either the administrative exigencies or the public interest. 18. Mere use of the word “in the interest of public service” or “in the public interest” will not make the order so issued to be in the public interest. The undue haste shown by the departmental Minister certainly gives rise to the impression that it was not done keeping in mind either the administrative exigencies or the public interest. 18. Mere use of the word “in the interest of public service” or “in the public interest” will not make the order so issued to be in the public interest. A Division Bench of this Court in Ramzan Ali Ahmed Vs Taiyab Ali Ahmed, reported in 1998 (2) GLT 242 held that recitation of the expressions “in the public interest” or “in the interest of public service” in the transfer order does not ipso facto mean that it was passed in public interest. It is not a shield against the Court’s enquiry. It is the content as discernible from the record and not the form which determines the public interest. 19. Additional Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam holds a high position in the bureaucratic hierarchy of the State. He is next only to the Chief Secretary. Directing an officer of the rank of Addl. Chief Secretary to issue transfer order as decided by the Minister within 24 hours without any departmental proposal and without complying with the official formalities may not be justified at all. What is most surprising or rather distressing to note is that the Addl. Chief Secretary despite being such a senior officer did not deem it fit to bring it to the notice of the Minister the relevant administrative requirements including the requirement of approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister since the contemplated transfers were before expiry of two years. 20. In the case of Tarlochan Dev Sharma Vs State of Punjab & Ors. reported in (2001) 6 SCC 260 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in the system of Indian democratic governance as contemplated by the Constitution, senior officers occupying key positions such as Secretaries are not supposed to mortgage own discretion, volition and decision making authority and be prepared to give way or being pushed back or pressed ahead at the behest of politicians for carrying out commands having no sanctity in law. It was held as follows:- “16. It was held as follows:- “16. In the system of Indian democratic governance as contemplated by the Constitution, senior officers occupying key positions such as Secretaries are not supposed to mortgage their own discretion, volition and decision-making authority and be prepared to give way or being pushed back or pressed ahead at the behest of politicians for carrying out commands having no sanctity in law. The Conduct Rules of Central Government Services command the civil servants to maintain at all times absolute integrity and devotion to duty and do nothing which is unbecoming of a government servant. No government servant shall in the performance of his official duties, or in the exercise of power conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgment except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior. In Anirudhsinhji Jadeja this Court has held that a statutory authority vested with jurisdiction must exercise it according to its own discretion; discretion exercised under the direction or instruction of some higher authority is failure to exercise discretion altogether. Observations of this Court in Purtabpore Co. Ltd. are instructive and apposite. Executive Officers may in exercise of their statutory discretions take into account consideration of public policy and in some context, policy of a Minister or the Government as a whole when it is a relevant factor in weighing the policy but they are not absolved from their duty to exercise their personal judgment in individual cases unless explicit statutory provision has been made for instructions by a superior to bind them. As already stated, we are not recording, for want of adequate material, any positive finding that the impugned order was passed at the behest of or dictated by someone else than its author. Yet we have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order betrays utter non-application of mind to the facts of the case and the relevant law. The manner in which the power under Section 22 has been exercised by the competent authority is suggestive of betrayal of the confidence which the State Government reposed in the Principal Secretary in conferring upon him the exercise of drastic power like removal of President of a Municipality under Section 22 of the Act. The manner in which the power under Section 22 has been exercised by the competent authority is suggestive of betrayal of the confidence which the State Government reposed in the Principal Secretary in conferring upon him the exercise of drastic power like removal of President of a Municipality under Section 22 of the Act. To say the least, what has been done is not what is expected to be done by a senior official like the Principal Secretary of a wing of the State Government. We leave it at that and say no more on this issue.” 21. It is seen from the documents placed on record that the State Government in the Personnel Department has issued office memorandum dated 06.08.2013 notifying that approval of the Chief Minister is required to be obtained only for transfer of officers who have not completed two years in a particular place of posting instead of three years which was the norm earlier. In the present case, admittedly, the impugned transfer of the petitioner is before completion of two years of the petitioner in his present place of posting. The record shows that the Chief Minister has not accorded approval to such transfer. 22. Though such administrative guidelines may not be enforceable in a Court of law, nonetheless such guidelines have been framed by the administration for compliance of the administrative authorities. Administrative authorities cannot take the plea of unenforceability of the guidelines in a Court of law to justify their non-adherence to such guidelines. As per the own guidelines fixed by the State the impugned transfer order becomes untenable as there is no approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister and therefore cannot be sustained. Moreover, as already noticed, no public interest is discernible from the record. Impugned transfer is clearly arbitrary and lacks bonafide. 23. Accordingly and in the light of the above, impugned notification dated 02.04.2015 in respect of the petitioner and respondent No. 5 is hereby set aside and quashed. Writ petition is allowed. 24. Record produced by Mr. P. K. Bora, learned Govt. Advocate is returned back. 25. File of WP(C) No. 2686/2015 may be delinked.