Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 388 (GAU)

Tasso Sira v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

2020-03-13

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

body2020
JUDGMENT Parthivjyoti Saikia, J. - Heard Mr. N. Kago, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Soki, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, representing State respondents and Mr. J. Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No. 5. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner, herein, has challenged the transfer and posting order No. FOR.341/EA/2013/18,738-80, dated 22.10.2019, issued by the PCCF & Principal Secretary, Environment & Forests, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. By the impugned order, the petitioner was transferred from Banderdewa Forest Division as DFO to Shergaon Forest Division, Rupa. 3. The petitioner has been working as an Officer of Arunachal Pradesh State Forest Service. He has already put in 27 years of service and during that period, he was transferred many times and posted at different places and wherever he goes, he takes his wife to that place. She procures the transfer to her husband place. Presently, the petitioner has been working as DFO, Banderdewa Forest Division. By the impugned order, he was transferred as DFO, Shergaon Forest Division, Rupa. The petitioner has challenged this transfer order on the ground that the State Government has a Rule that officers are posted at a place for a minimum period of 2 (two) years. Now, before completion of 2 (two) years, he has been transferred. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel, Mr. J. Hussain, appearing for the private respondent No. 5, has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is an IFS Officer. He has further submitted that according to Rule 9 of Indian Forests Service (Cadre) Rule, 1966, the cadre post in an State shall not be filled by a person who is not a cadre officer except in the following cases; namely - wxyz (a) If there is no suitable cadre officer available for filling the vacancy. zyxw wxyz Provided that when a suitable cadre officer becomes available, the person who is not a cadre officer shall be replaced by the cadre officer. zyxw 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N. Kago, on the other hand, has submitted that there are 16 IFS cadre posts in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and out of these 16 posts only 3 are occupied by IFS Officers while the rest are occupied by the State Forest Service Officers. The learned counsel, Mr. zyxw 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N. Kago, on the other hand, has submitted that there are 16 IFS cadre posts in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and out of these 16 posts only 3 are occupied by IFS Officers while the rest are occupied by the State Forest Service Officers. The learned counsel, Mr. Kago, has further submitted that he has been unnecessarily singled out for transfer while some non-cadre officers are still working in similar positions for more than 3 or 5 years. 6. Mr. Soki, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, has submitted that the 2 year Rule is not a Statute so the State is the authority to make transfers against that Rule. To that effect, Mr. Soki, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, has relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. S. L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357 . In this case, the Supreme Court has held that the executive instructions pertaining to transfers are in the nature of guidelines and they do not have any statutory force. In paragraph 7 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court has held as under - wxyz "7.Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the government employee a legally enforceable right." zyxw 7. Mr. Soki, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, has also relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court that was rendered in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402 . The said guideline however does not confer upon the government employee a legally enforceable right." zyxw 7. Mr. Soki, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, has also relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court that was rendered in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402 . In paragraph 8 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has held as under - wxyz "8.A challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the Courts or Tribunals as though they are Appellate Authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. This is for the reason that Courts or Tribunals cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent authorities of the State and even allegations of mala fides when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the Court or are based on concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made with an order of transfer." zyxw 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the matter. By the impugned transfer order, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh intends to fill up the post of DFO, Banderdewa Forest Division with an IFS Officer. There is no dispute at the Bar that this post is reserved for IFS Officers. 9. Here in this case, the petitioner has not alleged any mala fide against the respondents. He only pleads that the 2 (two) years norm for transfer of officers should be complied with for his case. He has simply submitted that he wants to complete 2 (two) years at Banderdewa. 10. The law on the point is well settled by the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court. Moreover, the post of DFO, Banderdewa Forest Division, is reserved for IFS Officers. The petitioner also admits this fact. Therefore, nothing remains to be discussed. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. 11. The interim stay order stands vacated.