Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 424 (GAU)

Hura Kaku v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & 4 Ors.

2016-05-16

AJIT SINGH, SUMAN SHYAM

body2016
Ajit Singh; CJ.:-- 1. Heard on admission. 1. This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 2.5.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby he has finally disposed of appellant’s WP(C) No. 221(AP) 2016. 2. The State Government of Arunachal Pradesh has recently appointed appellant on the post of Assistant Project Officer vide order dated 19.10.2015. By the same order, he was posted at Roing. Admittedly, the appellant joined his posting at Roing on 19.10.2015. Later, the State Government, by order dated 22.4.2016, has transferred the appellant from Roing to Anini. Aggrieved, the appellant filed WP(C) No. 221(AP)2016 on the ground that he has been transferred mainly to accommodate respondent No. 4 at the instance of Parliamentary Secretary, Respondent No. 5. 3. In reply, the State Government defended its action by stating that respondent No. 4 has already served more than five years at Anini and therefore, he had to be transferred from that place. The State Government also averred that respondent No. 5 nowhere recommended to post the appellant at Anini. 4. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, accepted the version of State Government and having regard to the representation made by the appellant, finally disposed of the petition with a direction that till the State Government decides his representation, operation of transfer order dated 22.4.2006 shall remain stayed. It is in this background, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 5. As seen above, the appellant is a young officer and has been appointed only recently on 19.10.2015. He should, in fact, consider himself to be fortunate of getting a chance to serve the people as public servant. The appellant, therefore, instead of insisting for his posting at a particular place and that too at the very beginning of his career, must, in all fairness, comply with the transfer order. It is also not denied by the appellant that respondent No. 4 has already served at Anini for more than 5 years and therefore, he had to be posted elsewhere. We find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed summarily.