JUDGMENT Nani Tagia, J. - The Court proceedings have been conducted by means of creating a Virtual Court with the help of technology, so as to maintain distance between the Advocates, the Staffs and the presiding Judge. Heard Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Ete, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh assisted by Mr. G. Tarak, learned Standing Counsel for the Rural Works Department representing respondent No. 1 and Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order, dated 29.06.2020 issued by the Secretary (RWD), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, vide Memo No. SRWD-44/2002/618, by which order, the petitioner, who is a Superintending Engineer working at Rural Works Circle, Pasighat, has been transferred and posted as Senior Surveyor of Works(SSW), in the office of the Chief Engineer, Rural Works Department (Eastern Zone), Itanagar, and in his place, the respondent No. 2, namely, Shri Renia Tamin, working as SSW, Chief Engineer, Rural Works Department (Eastern Zone), Itanagar, has been posted as Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Circle, Pasighat. Also, put to challenge is the order No. SRWD-44/2002/633, dated 03.07.2020, issued by the Commissioner (RWD) (1st Link Officer), whereby the representation submitted by the petitioner against his transfer had been rejected. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent for disposal of the representation, dated 06.07.2020, on its own merit. 3. The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition, may, briefly, be stated as follows: (i). It is the case of the petitioner that while he was working as Superintending Engineer at RWC, Pasighat, the process for transfer and posting of the respondent No. 2 started with an Un-Official Note, being, UO No. MP(LS)/ARUN(E)/(TG)/01/2019, dated 12.12.2019, written by the Member of Parliament(Lok Sabha), East Parliamentary Constituency & President BJP, Arunachal Pradesh, in the following manner, which has been reproduced hereinbelow: Office of the Member of Parliament( Lok Sabha) East Parliamentary Constitutency Arunachal Pradesh NOTE It is given to understand that Shri Hibu Tama, SE, RWD, Pasighat Circle is due for transfer anytime as he has already completed his normal tenure. In this connection, undersigned has received request from the public of my constituency for posting of one Shri Renia Tamin, SSW, Eastern Zone, RWD, Itanagar as SE of Pasighat RWD circle in place of Shri Hibu Tama. It is reliably learnt that Shri Renia Tamin, is a competent officer with a good service track record and hence he would make a suitable officer to replace the incumbent SE, RWD, Pasighat Circle. He has the required seniority as well as the right field experience to carry forward the work of RWD in Pasighat circle competently and effectively. Hence, in the light of above reasons, Hon'ble Minister, RWD, Arunachal Pradesh is requested to kindly post Shri Renia Tamin, as SE, RWD, Pasighat circle in public interest. (Tapir Gao), Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha) East Parliamentary Constituency & President BJP, Aruanchal Pradesh " (ii). A series of identical notes for posting of the respondent No. 2 as SE, RWC, Pasighat, followed which were written by the Hon''ble Ministers and the Members of Legislative Assembly, viz; U.O. Notes, dated 07.01.2020, written by the Minister, Health & Family Welfare, Arunachal Pradesh; Minister, Industries, T&H, etc., Government of Arunachal Pradesh; MLA of 37-Pasighat East AC, Arunachal Pradesh; MLA of 36-Nari Koyu AC, Arunachal Pradesh; MLA of 29-Basar AC Arunachal Pradesh; U.O. Note, dated 08.01.2020, written by MLA of 32-Rumgong AC Arunachal Pradesh and U.O. Note dated 09.01.2020 written by MLA of 40-Mariyang-Geku AC Arunachal Pradesh. (iii). On the basis of series of U.O. Notes received from the Member of Parliament, the Hon''ble Ministers and the Members of Legislative Assembly, process for posting the respondent No. 2 at RWC Pasighat, was processed on file by the respondent authorities on 15.05.2020 and it eventually received the approval of the Hon''ble Chief Minister on 21.06.2020, which resulted in issuance of the impugned order, dated 29.06.2020. (iv). (iv). Aggrieved by the posting of the respondent No. 2 in his place at Pasighat, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Secretary (Rural Works Department), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, on 30.06.2020, contending that the transfer order, dated 29.06.2020, on the recommendation of the Hon''ble Ministers, Member of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly is a clear violation of Government order No. PERS-46/2019, dated Itanagar the 14th January 2020, which amongst others, provided that no recommendation of transfer and posting shall be entertained by the Government and any recommendation, in this regard, in favour of any Government employee, shall be viewed adversely against the Government Official concerned. The petitioner further contended in his representation, dated 30.06.2020 that respondent No. 2 is not a regular Superintending Engineer(SE) but was only a functional SE. (v). As the representation submitted by the respondent did not evoke any prompt response from the respondent authorities, the petitioner filed a writ petition, being, WP(C)No. 182(AP)2020 before this Court, which was disposed of vide Order, dated 01.07.2020, whereby, while disposing of the writ petition, this Court had directed the Secretary(Rural Works Department), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner, within 5(five) days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Till such time, the representation was disposed of, the petitioner''s place of posting at Pasighat was directed, not to be disturbed. As directed, the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 30.06.2020 was disposed of by order, dated 03.07.2020 by the Commissioner (RWD) (1st Link Officer) holding that there is no rationale for cancelling the transfer order dated 29.06.2020. (vi). It is the further case of the petitioner that as the order, dated 03.07.2020, which is the order disposing of the representation submitted by the petitioner, did not address to the contentions raised by the petitioner in his representation, dated 30.06.2020, the petitioner submitted another representation on 06.07.2020 to the Commissioner/ Secretary, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, for re-consideration/re-calling of the transfer order, dated 29.06.2020. As the second representation, dated 06.07.2020, submitted by the petitioner, was not attended to by the respondent authorities, the petitioner is before this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. The respondent No. 1 has contested the case by filing a counter-affidavit. of Arunachal Pradesh, for re-consideration/re-calling of the transfer order, dated 29.06.2020. As the second representation, dated 06.07.2020, submitted by the petitioner, was not attended to by the respondent authorities, the petitioner is before this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. The respondent No. 1 has contested the case by filing a counter-affidavit. (i) In the counter-affidavit filed, it is stated that representation dated 30.06.2020 submitted by the petitioner against the transfer and posting order, dated 29.06.2020, issued under Memo. No. SRWD-44/2002/618, as also directed by this Court in WP(C)No. 182(AP)2020, was rejected by a speaking order dated 03.07.2020 passed by the Commissioner, RWD(1st Link Officer). (ii) It has been further stated in the counter-affidavit that though several Notes were received from the Hon''ble Ministers, Member of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly, none of the Notes received had, however, indicated any adverse remark against the petitioner. As the Notes received, had simply made a request to transfer the petitioner as he had completed his normal tenure of posting and in his place to post the respondent No. 2, the recommendations made by the Hon''ble Ministers, the Member of Parliament and the Members of Legislative Assembly, therefore, would not vitiate the transfer order as the petitioner had completed his normal tenure of posting at Pasighat and the recommendation Notes put up by the Hon''ble Ministers, the Member of Parliament and the Members of Legislative Assembly, were in the nature of their duty being the representative of the people in the legislature. (iii) The Respondent No. 1 by referring to FR-11, further contends that transfer and posting of the employee is within the domain of the employer and unless the transfer is made in mala fide exercise of power, such a transfer order should not be interfered with by this Court. (iv) The Respondent No. 1 contends that it is a fact that the Respondent No. 2 was allowed to look after the charge of the Superintending Engineer purely on temporary and functional basis, by order, dated 07.06.2018, and was posted as Senior Surveyor of Works(SSW) in the Office of the Chief Engineer, Rural Works Department, Eastern Zone, Itanagar. So is the petitioner, who was also promoted on officiating basis in the post of Superintending Engineer, vide order, dated 21.06.2011, and is yet to be regularized as Superintending Engineer. So is the petitioner, who was also promoted on officiating basis in the post of Superintending Engineer, vide order, dated 21.06.2011, and is yet to be regularized as Superintending Engineer. The Respondent No. 2 was also allowed to look after the charge of Senior Surveyor of Works(SSW) on functional basis with the approval of the competent authority as he was the senior most Executive Engineer in the Rural Works Department, and eligible to be promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer. 5. The Respondent No. 2 has also contested the case by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, the Respondent No. 2 has raised the following contentions: (i) As the writ petitioner has been transferred after completion of a tenure of 2 years and 8 months at Pasighat, the writ petitioner would have no right to remain further posted at Pasighat. (ii) Though the Respondent No. 2 is a functional Superintending Engineer, the petitioner is also an officiating Superintending Engineer, who have not yet been regularized in the post of Superintending Engineer. The writ petitioner by not disclosing the fact that he is an officiating Superintending Engineer in the writ petition, has not come up with clean hands before this Court, entitling any relief(s) from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (iii) The petitioner, by not disclosing that he is an officiating promotee in the post of Superintending Engineer, has suppressed the material fact and has not candidly disclosed the correct facts before the Court and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief(s) from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; and (iv) Finally, as the petitioner''s representation was disposed of by the Commissioner, RWD(1st Link Officer), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, by his order, dated 03.07.2020, in pursuance of the direction passed by this Court on 01.07.2020 in WP(c)182(AP)2020, and also that the petitioner was released by the Chief Engineer, Rural Works Department, Eastern Zone, Government of Arunachal Pradesh; in the absence of the Commissioner and the Chief Engineer, having been made as party respondents in this writ petition, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. 6. 6. The petitioner by filing an affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent No. 2, has annexed a final inter-se seniority list of the Superintending Engineers(Civil) under the Rural Works Department, issued by the Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, dated 01.11.2019, issued on 07.11.2019, vide Memo. No. SRWD.20/2005/405 (appended as Annexure-XII to the affidavit-in-reply), to indicate that the petitioner has been placed at Sl. No. 5 of the aforesaid inter-se seniority list of the Superintending Engineers(Civil), as on 11.10.2019. The petitioner, on the basis of the inter-se seniority list of the Superintending Engineers(Civil), would contend that the writ petitioner and the private respondent No. 2 are not similarly situated. The petitioner is a Superintending Engineer since 23.06.2011 against the reserved vacancy and placed at Sl. No. 5 of the aforesaid inter-se seniority list of the Superintending Engineers(Civil), whereas the private respondent No. 2 is an Executive Engineer, working on functional basis as Superintending Engineer who is yet to find his place in the cadre of the Superintending Engineer. 7. Mr. Tama, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned transfer order, dated 29.06.2020, has not been made in public interest and in exigency of public service but the same has been made only in order to accommodate the private respondent No. 2 on the recommendation of the Hon''ble Ministers, MP and the MLAs. Transfer order issued on such recommendation is violation of O.M. dated 14.01.2020, issued by the Secretary (Personnel), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, vide Memo No. PERS-46/2019/90. 8. Mr. Tama, learned counsel, further contends that though the petitioner may have completed his normal tenure of posting at Pasighat yet, he cannot be replaced by an Executive Engineer, working as a functional Superintending Engineer. If at all the writ petitioner is to be replaced, he has to be replaced by the similarly situated officer of the cadre of Superintending Engineer. In not doing so, the respondent authorities have not acted bona fide in issuing the impugned transfer order, dated 29.06.2020, and the same is vitiated by the colourable exercise of power by the respondent authorities. 9. In support of his submissions, Mr. Tama, learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied on the following decisions: (i). ( Toheli Sumi vs. State of Nagaland & Ors., (2009) 2 GauLT 956 ) "14. 9. In support of his submissions, Mr. Tama, learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied on the following decisions: (i). ( Toheli Sumi vs. State of Nagaland & Ors., (2009) 2 GauLT 956 ) "14. In M. Balakrishna Reddy (supra), it was found that there was nothing to suggest even remotely that the transfer order was issued only to accommodate the respondent No. 5 in the said proceeding. In the said decision, the Division Bench of this Court has referred to the observation of the Apex Court in Mohd. Mashood Ahmad Vs. State of U.P., (2007) 11 Scale 271 . The observations is as follows: "After all it is the duty of the representative of the people in the legislature to express the grievance of the people and if there is any complaint against an officer, the State Government is certainly within its jurisdiction to transfer such an employee. There can be no hard and fast rule that every transfer at the instance of an MP or MLA would be vitiated and it will all depend on the facts and circumstances of individual case." 15. It is not a case of espousing the cause of the public by the Parliamentary Secretary. It is also not a case of transferring the appellant on the basis of some complaint against her. It is pure and simple desire of the Parliamentary Secretary unconnected with the Education Department to have the respondent No. 4 posted at Zunheboto, no matter what consequence would follow, which was the transfer of the appellant to accommodate such desire of the Parliamentary Secretary. Not only that he even went to the extent of dictating terms regarding movement of file etc. which, however, was subsequently withdrawn, having brought to the notice of this Court." (ii). ( Potsangbam Super Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Manipur & Ors., (2009) 3 GauLT 635 ) "7. The relevant portions of transfer orders are reproduced below for ready reference:- "ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR : MANIPUR Imphal, the 21st July, 2007 **** **** **** **** **** **** 1. A. Kalachand Singh               As SW to SE, MID Manipur vice Shri S. Tualhnun, AE-MID (look after SW to SE, MID, Manipur) transferred **** **** **** **** **** **** 3. L. Madhop Singh                      As AE/MID No. I, AE, Imphal West                     Thoubal Sub-Divn. A. Kalachand Singh               As SW to SE, MID Manipur vice Shri S. Tualhnun, AE-MID (look after SW to SE, MID, Manipur) transferred **** **** **** **** **** **** 3. L. Madhop Singh                      As AE/MID No. I, AE, Imphal West                     Thoubal Sub-Divn. MID-III                                  and will look the works Manipur                                  of EE/MID No. I vice Shri A. Kalachand Singh transferred." "ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR : MANIPUR Imphal, the 18th August, 2007 **** **** **** **** **** **** "1. L. Madhop Singh                      As AE/MID No.-I, AE, (Imphal West                     Thoubal Sub-Divn. Sub-Division MID-III)                 MID No. I **** **** **** **** **** **** 5. Shri O. Goverdhon Singh           As AE(Imphal West Sub-Divn.) MID-III AE(Chandel Sub-Divn.)                 Vice Sl. No. 1 **** **** **** **** **** **** It is also ordered that the seniormost AE of MID-I will look after the works of EE/MID-I vice Shri A. Kalachand Singh, now under suspension. And the earlier order of giving look after appointment as SW to CE/MID to Shri Tualhnun is also withdrawn with immediate effect and until further orders. Sl. No. 1 & 6 will move first." 8. During the argument, learned Govt. Advocate fairly conceded that virtually there is no difference in the orders dated 21.7.2007 and 18.8.2007. I also find that in both the orders, the respondent No. 3, L. Madhop Singh, Assistant Engineer has been transferred from MID-III to MID-I without any regular promotion. The only difference is that in the earlier order, the respondent No. 3 was allowed to take over the charge of Executive Engineer in explicit language whereas in the impugned order, it has been stated that the seniormost Assistant Engineer of MID-I will look after the works of EE/MID-I. Not only this, it is apparent that Shri O. Goverdhon Singh, who is the petitioner No. 3 has also been shifted from MID-I only to accommodate the respondent No. 3. It is because without transfer of Shri O. Goverdhon Singh, it would not have been possible for the Government to allow the respondent No. 3 to look after the division since Shri O. Goverdhon Singh (petitioner No. 3) is admittedly senior to respondent No. 3. It is worth mentioning here the petitioners have submitted seniority list which clearly shows that all the seven petitioners are senior to the respondent No. 3. It is worth mentioning here the petitioners have submitted seniority list which clearly shows that all the seven petitioners are senior to the respondent No. 3. Since the transfer orders have been issued in the immediate proximate of U.O. letter of the Hon''ble Chief Minister, it can safely be inferred that the respondent No. 3 has been transferred to MID-I with calculated intention to give the charge of the division. 9. As mentioned earlier, the previous transfer order dated 21.7.2007 was challenged by A. Kalachand Singh in WP (C) No. 553 of 2007 and obtained stay order on 27.7.2007. This Executive Engineer was placed under suspension within a period of two weeks vide order dated 16.8.2007, contemplating drawal of departmental proceeding for committing financial impropriety. It would not be proper for me to dwell upon the rationality, propriety and justification of the suspension order but one thing is apparent that the State respondents were bent upon to shift the respondent No. 3 to MID-I and give him the de-facto status of Executive Engineer. 11. In the case of Jibeswar Thakuria Vs. State of Assam & Ors., (2004) 1 GauLT 347 : 2005 (4) SLR 26 , the following thought provoking observations were made while staying the transfer order made on political influence:- "21. With the above revelation from the records relating to the grounds of transfer of the petitioners vis -vis the private respondents in all the cases, it is now to be decided as to whether the impugned orders in all the three writ petitions are sustainable or not. It is an accepted principle that in public service transfer is an incident of service. The appointing authority has a wide discretion in the matter. The Govt. is the best Judge to decide how to distribute and utilize the services of the employees. However, the power must be exercise honestly, bona fide and reasonably. It must be exercised in public interest. If the exercise of power is based on extraneous consideration or for achievement of alien purpose or/and motive, it would amount to mala fide and colourable exercise of power. However, the power must be exercise honestly, bona fide and reasonably. It must be exercised in public interest. If the exercise of power is based on extraneous consideration or for achievement of alien purpose or/and motive, it would amount to mala fide and colourable exercise of power. The transfer may be termed to be founded on mala fide and colourable exercise of power when it is not for the professed purpose like normal course, public or administrative interest or in the exigency of service, but for other purpose like accommodating another person at the behest of the political basis having no nexus with the Department concerned. 22. The responsibility for good administration is that of the Government. The maintenance of efficient, honest and experienced administration is a must for due discharge of that responsibility. When the transfer is not administered on the established principles of exigency, but for other purpose and on extraneous consideration, the same is illegal and liable to be set aside. One of the elementary principles of administrative law is that the authority which has to exercise the power should apply its mind before such exercise. It cannot abdicate its application to do so and act on the instances of the another authority which is not authorized to exercise the power" 11.1. Earlier to that also, in the case of Ramen Talukdar v. State of Assam & Ors., (1998) 2 GauLT 82 , the transfer order was quashed with the following observations:- "It is true that who is to be transferred and where is a matter exclusively in the domain of the appropriate authority and the Court shall not normally interfere with it unless the order is made in violation of the statutory provision or is vitiated with malafide. In the instant case as has already been held hereinbefore, the order is tainted and malafide because of external influence and, as such, cannot be sustained. " 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed the judgment of Hon''ble supreme Court rendered in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Vs. A.V. Venugopala Rao, (1995) 1 SCC 179 . In this case also, the order of transfer of an officer giving interim in-charge of the office was challenged. However, the transfer order was sustained by the Hon''ble Apex Court on the ground that the transferred officer was the senior most in the rank. Vs. A.V. Venugopala Rao, (1995) 1 SCC 179 . In this case also, the order of transfer of an officer giving interim in-charge of the office was challenged. However, the transfer order was sustained by the Hon''ble Apex Court on the ground that the transferred officer was the senior most in the rank. In other words, the Hon''ble Apex Court found rationality in the order giving charge of office to the senior most officer. From this judgment also, it is apparent that seniority of eligible employees should be taken into consideration even for interim arrangement. In my considered opinion, maintaining seniority even for short period is also necessary to maintain discipline in the Department and it would also avoid heartburning among rival claimants. 17. Reverting back to the facts of the writ petitions, I find least justification to transfer the respondent No. 3 to MID-I and more particularly, giving him the charge of the office of Executive Engineer. Neither the learned Government Advocate nor the affidavit of the respondents No. 1 and 2 could justify such action. It should be made known to the respondents that any order woven with political fabric and blended with executive biasness cannot sustain in the eye of law. Any such limping order would tumble down even before facing the judicial test. Had it been a transfer simpliciter, it could have been presumed that the transfer order was issued in the public interest and without any malice. However, facts and circumstances of the case clearly suggest that it is a malafide transfer. I do not hesitate to hold that the impugned transfer order has violated all cannons and norms of fairness, reasonableness and transparency in the executive actions. Bad smell of favouritism and foul play is sneezing out of the impugned order. It is out and out a motivated and biased order. The State respondents have also disregarded the stay order passed in WP (C) No. 553 and 555 of 2007. 19. In the result, both the writ petitions stand allowed. Since the impugned order is contemptuous and malafide in nature, the writ petitions are allowed with costs of Rs. 21,000/-. All the seven writ petitioners shall be entitled to cost of Rs. 3000/- each. The State respondents are directed to pay this amount to the writ petitioners within two months from today. Since the impugned order is contemptuous and malafide in nature, the writ petitions are allowed with costs of Rs. 21,000/-. All the seven writ petitioners shall be entitled to cost of Rs. 3000/- each. The State respondents are directed to pay this amount to the writ petitioners within two months from today. If the amount is not paid during this period, it shall carry interest @ 10% per annum from today, which can be realized through Civil Court." (iii). ( Kapil Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Tripura & Ors., (2007) 3 GauLT 944 ) "11. By this time, it is settled by the Apex Court that it is not duty of the Court to decide where and how the employer will utilize the services of its employees, rather the employer is the best judge to decide who should be transferred where and how. But when the employer passes an order in violation of its own guidelines and rejects the representation of an employee thereon without application of its mind at the time of consideration and disposal of the representation, such an order can be interfered with by the Court, which was made in the instant case. 12. The impugned transfer order was issued on 8.5.2006 and the same could not be given effect to either due to pendency of the writ petition or due to the discussion held between the officers of the State and the N.C.C. The order of transfer of the petitioner was also kept in abeyance for a period as noted earlier, which action of the respondent authorities goes to show that the authorities once considered that the service of the petitioner was not so required in the Kulai Col High School, where the petitioner was transferred. This Court in the case of V. K. Mathew Vs. Union of India, (2007) 1 GauLT 183 observed that improper consideration of representation violates the provisions of guidelines, which may create indiscipline in the administration in future and the employers for whom the policies were framed, they may not be in a position to fully believe the employers and their actions for, they themselves are not acting on their own policies in the name of Doctrine of possibility. In S.L. Abbas (supra), the Apex Court though did not interfere with the transfer order, but mentioned that "while considering the transfer of Government employee, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject, but the said guidelines do not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right. " If a reasonable man centralizes himself to the aforesaid observations of the Apex Court, then he will find that their Lordships in the aforesaid case though did not interfere with the transfer order impugned in that case, but reminded the authority to see the object of the guidelines. In the instant case, the authorities failed to appreciate the purpose of their guidelines/order dated 3.9.1976 and thus denied the real justice to an employee like the petitioner by rejecting the prayer for stay of the transfer order. It is true that the Government may not be in a position to transfer an employee like the petitioner to a particular school where a unit of NCC is available. But that does not mean that the authorities are not in a position to consider an attempt for such a posting after discussion with the NCC authorities as agreed to while the matter of transfer of a teacher performing as ANO/CTO like the petitioner in the school was discussed at the higher level in which Hon''ble Minister, Higher Education, Tripura was present. The petitioner also should not except a particular posting of his choice, but he can except that his representation is considered in a reasonable manner keeping in mind the guidelines framed by the employers and he is given opportunities to utilize his experience gathered through training for development of future generation, the students of school and motivate them to be members of national cadets and later get encouraged to join in the defence service for the sake of national interest. Therefore, the representation of the petitioner was to be considered by the authorities in the light of the guidelines/order dated 3.9.1976 and in consideration of the request of Officer Commanding, N.C.C. vide letter dated 29.5.2006 and 4.8.2006, Annexure - 7 and 10 to the writ petition respectively, which is totally absent in the instant case. 13. Therefore, the representation of the petitioner was to be considered by the authorities in the light of the guidelines/order dated 3.9.1976 and in consideration of the request of Officer Commanding, N.C.C. vide letter dated 29.5.2006 and 4.8.2006, Annexure - 7 and 10 to the writ petition respectively, which is totally absent in the instant case. 13. In the facts and circumstances, this Court thinks it proper to dispose of the entire writ petition with a direction to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Education Department, Government of Tripura (Respondent No. 1 herein) and the Director of School Education, Government of Tripura, Tripura (Respondent No. 2 herein) to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner in the light of the discussion held between the Commanding Officer, N.C.C. and the Hon''ble Minister, Higher Education, Tripura in presence of the officers of the directorate of Higher Education, Tripura and keeping in mind the guidelines/order dated 3.9.1976. The petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation within a period of fifteen days stating all his grievances along with a copy of the writ petition to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Education Department, Government of Tripura with a copy to the Director of School Education, Tripura, who shall reconsider the representation of the petitioner and dispose of the same within a period of two weeks of receipt of such representation of the petitioner, by a reasoned order keeping in view the objects of the guidelines/order dated 3.9.1976 and the discussion held between the Officer Commanding, N.C.C and the Hon''ble Minister, Higher Education, Tripura in presence of the officers of the DHE (NCC) and also keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 23 of the National Cadet Corps Rules, 1948, which discussed as regards the rights of the N.C.C. officers. Till disposal of the said representation of the petitioner, the interim order passed earlier by this Court on 18.11.2006 staying the impugned transfer order of the petitioner dated 8.5.2006 shall continue." (iv). ( Ramzan Ali Ahmad v. Taiyab Ali Ahmed & ors., (1998) 2 GauLT 242 ) "13. The impugned judgement proceeded on erroneous assumption that it was a case of malafides imputed against the Minister-in-charge or the MLA who were not made parties to the petition while in fact it is not so. ( Ramzan Ali Ahmad v. Taiyab Ali Ahmed & ors., (1998) 2 GauLT 242 ) "13. The impugned judgement proceeded on erroneous assumption that it was a case of malafides imputed against the Minister-in-charge or the MLA who were not made parties to the petition while in fact it is not so. The writ petitioner appellant has filed a copy of the resolution dated 12.2.97 as passed by the Managing Committee, Annexure-1(I) and a photo copy of the letter dated 8.2.97, Annexure I-H written by the Principal, Agomoni H.S. School to the Director of School Education which is indicate of the minds of the authorities, despite this Court''s stay order dated 29.1.97 suspending the operation of transfer order dated 16.1.97 the Principal of the School writes to the Director that the writ petitioner was not allowed to join in the School as is evident from Annexure-I-H filed by the writ petitioner in M.C. Case No. 137 of 1997 and the reason assigned for not allowing him to join is "as no information was received from the Director". The letter itself is reproduced below for ready reference: "With reference to your letter No. GB/EST/TRN/24/93/30 dated 16.1.97 Sri Ramjan Ali Ahmed, S.T. Agomani H.S. School has been released from this school on 20.1.97. But Sri Taiyab Ali Ahmed has not been released from Satrasal H.S. Vidyapith and could not join here till today. In the meantime, Sri Ramjan Ali Ahmed has returned to this institution on 1.2.97 with Hon''ble High Court''s order. He is not allowed to join this institution as no information has not yet been received from your end. This is for your kind information and necessary action." What more remains in the case to infer colourable exercise of power on the part of the authorities? The learned Single Judge mistook it to be a case of malice imputed against the MLA or Minister-in-charge which it was certainly not as has been pointed out by the Supreme Court in B. Prabhakar Rao and others Vs- State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (1986) AIR SC 210 , merely because certain questions have to be determined incidentally in giving or not giving the relief asked for in the petition does not make each and every persons interested in such question necessary parties to such proceeding. In the instant case necessary parties, the authority passing the transfer order was very much there and it was for him to satisfy the Court that the impugned order of transfer was not made on any extraneous consideration or any colourable exercise of power, it was in fact public interest as professed in the order, but that has not been done. The impugned order is liable to be set aside on this count." (v). ( Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mill(P) Ltd. & Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 111 ) "59. A decision, as is well known, is an authority for which it is decided and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. It is also well settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision." (vi). ( Rajendra Singh & ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2009) 15 SCC 178 ) "13. It is difficult to fathom why the High Court went into the comparative conduct and integrity of the petitioner and Respondent No. 5 while dealing with a transfer matter. The High Court should have appreciated the true extent of scrutiny into a matter of transfer and the limited scope of judicial review. Respondent No. 5 being a Sub-Registrar, it is for the State Government or for that matter the Inspector General of Registration to decide about his place of posting. As to at what place Respondent No. 5 should be posted is an exclusive prerogative of the State Government and in exercise of that prerogative, Respondent No. 5 was transferred from Hapur II to Ghaziabad IV keeping in view administrative exigencies. 14. We are pained to observe that the High Court seriously erred in deciding as to whether Respondent No. 5 was a competent person to be posted at Ghaziabad IV as Sub-Registrar. The exercise undertaken by the High Court did not fall within its domain and was rather uncalled for. We are unable to approve the direction issued to the State Government and the Inspector General of Registration to transfer a competent officer at Ghaziabad IV as Sub-Registrar after holding that Respondent No. 5 cannot be said to be an officer having a better conduct and integrity in comparison to the petitioner justifying his posting at Ghaziabad IV. We are unable to approve the direction issued to the State Government and the Inspector General of Registration to transfer a competent officer at Ghaziabad IV as Sub-Registrar after holding that Respondent No. 5 cannot be said to be an officer having a better conduct and integrity in comparison to the petitioner justifying his posting at Ghaziabad IV. The High Court entered into an arena which did not belong to it and thereby committed serious error of law. 15. The only question required to be seen was whether transfer of Respondent No. 5 was actuated with mala fides or otherwise in violation of statutory rules. The transfer of Respondent No. 5 was not found to suffer from any of these vices. The High Court went into the competence and suitability of Respondent No. 5 for such posting. It is here that the High Court fell into a grave error. As a matter of fact, the impugned order of the High Court casts stigma in the service of Respondent No. 5 which may also act prejudicial to his interest in the pending appeal against the adverse remarks." (vii). ( The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers Association & ors. v. State of Maharashtra & ors., (1990) AIR SC 1607 ) "17. This question was considered in Patwardhan s, (1977) 3 SCR 775 : AIR 1977 SC 2051 ) at considerable length, and a categorical finding against the direct recruits was arrived at, which has been followed for the last more than a decade, in many cases arising between members of Maharashtra and Gujarat Engineering Services. The question is of vital importance affecting a very large number of officers in the departments concerned and many disputes have been settled by following the judgment in Patwardhan''s case. In such a situation it is not expedient to depart from the decision lightly. It is highly desirable that a decision, which concerns a large number of Government servants in a particular service and which has been given after careful consideration of the rival contentions is respected rather than scrutinised for finding out any possible error. It is not in the interest of the Service to unsettle a settled position every now and then. It is highly desirable that a decision, which concerns a large number of Government servants in a particular service and which has been given after careful consideration of the rival contentions is respected rather than scrutinised for finding out any possible error. It is not in the interest of the Service to unsettle a settled position every now and then. Besides, the learned counsel for the parties have placed the rival arguments on the issue in great detail with reference to every available material, and in our opinion the finding was correctly arrived at. We also agree that the interpretation given in P.Y. Joshi v. The State of Maharashtra, (1970) 2 SCR 615 , by a Bench of 5 Judges on R. 8 of the 1960 Rules, which answers one of the main grounds of the direct recruits in support of two-cadre theory must be respected. Mr. Tarkunde has attempted to distinguish P.Y. Joshi''s case and has challenged the correctness of the observations at page 795 (of SCR) : (at pp. 2063-64 of AIR) of the judgment in Patwardhan''s case. We do not agree with the learned counsel. The dispute in that case was in respect of promotion of promotee Deputy Engineers to posts of officiating Executive Engineers. R.7(ii) of the 1960 Rules prescribed, as a necessary condition for promotion, the minimum service of seven years as Deputy Engineer. The respondent in P.Y. Joshi''s case were eligible, provided their experience as officiating Deputy Engineers was allowed to be counted. The petitioners in that case were direct recruits to the posts of Deputy Engineers and they challenged the promotion of the respondents on the ground that they had not completed the seven years'' period after their confirmation as Deputy Engineers and the period for which they had been officiating as such was not available to them for the purpose. Their contention was "that under the rules in force the respondents who were in substantive rank of overseers were only officiating Deputy Engineers and that as they did not belong to the cadre of Deputy Engineers they were not entitled to promotion inasmuch as they had to put in after confirmation as Deputy Engineers 7 years of actual service before being eligible for promotion as officiating Executive Engineers". The arguments were addressed with reference to several rules including R. 8, and this Court while rejecting the stand of the direct recruits observed thus:- "In our view it is the list of such persons that is referred to in Cl.(ii) of R. 8 and not that there should be a list of persons actually officiating as Engineers for further promotion to the same post which will have little meaning, for there cannot be a promotion of a person in the same cadre of service who is already promoted whether as an officiating or temporary or permanent incumbent. If Cl.(i) of R. 8 provides that Class II cadre shall be recruited by competitive examination, the promotees also are promoted from the list of persons considered fit to hold sub divisional charge, i.e., post of Deputy Engineers. If in the case of direct recruits the appointment is without reference to confirmation, it cannot be any different in the case of promotees." This interpretation of R. 8 is binding as a precedent. It is urged by Mr. Tarkunde that the ratio of the Division Bench judgment in State of Gujarat v. C.G. Desai, (1974) 2 SCR 255 :( AIR 1974 SC 246 ), supports his argument and should be followed. We do not think so. The controversy there also related to the construction of R. 7(ii) of the 1960 Rules requiring the minimum service of 7 years for a Class II officer to be promoted as officiating Executive Engineer. The respondent No. 1 C.G. Desai who was not considered eligible for promotion was earlier officiating as Deputy Engineer from May, 1955 to December, 1959. Thereafter he successfully competed at an examination for direct recruitment to Class II Service held by the Public Service Commission and was appointed as Permanent Deputy Engineer. For the purpose of his promotion to the higher cadre he relied on his officiating service before he was selected as a direct recruit, which was denied by the Government. In a writ case his claim was accepted as legitimate by the High Court. This decision was challenged before this Court; and it was held by the judgment in the reported case that the respondent was not entitled to count his experience as officiating Deputy Engineer before his selection as a direct entrant in the Service. In a writ case his claim was accepted as legitimate by the High Court. This decision was challenged before this Court; and it was held by the judgment in the reported case that the respondent was not entitled to count his experience as officiating Deputy Engineer before his selection as a direct entrant in the Service. It was, inter alia, observed that if a person like the respondent leaves his position in the long queue of officiating Deputy Engineers with a view to avoid the tortuous wait for promotion and takes a short-cut, "he gives up once for all the advantages and disadvantages" of continuing as an officiating Deputy Engineer and accepts all the handicaps and benefits which attached to the group of direct recruits. "He cannot, after his direct recruitment claim the benefit of his preselection service and thus have the best of both the worlds." In this set up and for the purpose of construing R. 7 and considering the necessary qualification for promotion as an Executive Engineer, it was observed that the direct recruits and the promotees in Class II constituted two groups or classes, and it was pointed out that unless the pre-selection service as officiating Deputy Engineer of direct recruits was excluded for reckoning the 7 years experience, it would create two classes amongst the same group of direct recruits and result in discrimination against those direct recruits who had no such pre-selection service to their credit. The decision has to be understood in this background and it cannot be of any help to the present appellants. 44. To sum up, we hold that: (I) The posts held by the permanent Deputy Engineers as well as the officiating Deputy Engineers under the State of Maharashtra belonged to the single cadre of Deputy Engineers." (viii). WP(C) No. 257(AP)/2016 (Shri Niapung Konia Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.) 10. Mr. Ete, learned Senior Additional Advocate General appearing for the State respondent, on the other hand, submitted that no mala fide has been alleged by the petitioner and, in the absence of transfer order being issued mala fide, no interference is called for by this Court in the matter of transfer and posting of the employee. Mr. Ete, learned Senior Additional Advocate General appearing for the State respondent, on the other hand, submitted that no mala fide has been alleged by the petitioner and, in the absence of transfer order being issued mala fide, no interference is called for by this Court in the matter of transfer and posting of the employee. The writ petitioner having completed his normal tenure of posting at Pasighat have not been able to establish his right to remain at Pasighat and therefore, in the absence of any right being established by the petitioner, this Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not interfere with the transfer and posting of the employee. By referring to FR-11, the learned Senior Additional Advocate General further contended that the transfer and posting of an employee is within the domain of the employer and it is upto the employer to decide as to in what manner, the service of the employee should be utilized. He further submits that the writ petitioner having been promoted as Superintending Engineer on officiating basis, unless confirmed, continues to remain on officiating basis and accordingly, there cannot be any distinction between the petitioner and the respondent No.2, who is also a functional Superintending Engineer. With regard to the recommendations made by the Hon'ble Ministers, Member of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly, it is submitted that the recommendation made, by itself, would not vitiate the transfer and posting of the writ petitioner and the respondent No.2, in the absence of any mala fide being attributed on the part of the respondent authorities. He further submitted that even if mala fide is attributed, a high order of proof is called for, whenever mala fide is alleged. It is further contended that Govt. servant cannot have a right to be posted at a particular place unless the transfer order affects the career prospect of the employee. Such a transfer order should not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Addl. Advocate General, has relied on the following decisions: (i) ( State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402 ) "7. Such a transfer order should not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Addl. Advocate General, has relied on the following decisions: (i) ( State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402 ) "7. It is too late in the day for any government servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or Rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision. 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. 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." (ii) ( Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sri Janardhan Debnath & Anr., (2004) 4 SCC 245 ) "8. FR 15 reads as follows: "15.(a) The President may transfer a Government servant from one post to another; provided that except- (1) on account of inefficiency or misbehaviour, or (2) on his written request, a government servant shall not be transferred to, or except in a case covered by Rule 49, appointed to officiate in a post carrying less pay than the pay of the post on which he holds a lien." 9. A bare reading of Rule 37 shows that officials of the Department are liable to be transferred to any part of India unless it is expressly ordered otherwise for any particular class or classes of officials. Transfers were not to be ordered except when advisable in the interests of public service. The transfers can be made subject to conditions laid down in FRs 15 and 22. The appellant has indicated as to why and under what circumstances the transfers were thought proper in the interests of public service. The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India had gone into the question as to whether the transfer was in the interest of public service. That would essentially require factual adjudication and invariably depend upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case concerned. The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India had gone into the question as to whether the transfer was in the interest of public service. That would essentially require factual adjudication and invariably depend upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case concerned. 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 since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were the appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. This position was highlighted by this Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corpn Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan. 10. The Fundamental Rules primarily deal with the financial implications and consequences relating to services of government servants whose pay is debited to civil estimates and to any other class of governments servants too which the President may, by general or special order, declare them to be applicable. Rule 15 has to be read along with Rule 14-B. FR 15 has been quoted above and, therefore, quotation of FR 14-B would suffice. The same reads as follows: "14-B. Subject to the provisions of Rule 15, the President may transfer to another post in the same cadre, the lien of a Government servant who is not performing the duties of the post to which the lien relates". 11. A bare reading of FR-15 makes it clear that except in cases where the transfer is (a) on account of inefficiency or misbehaviour or (b) on a written request the government servant cannot be transferred or except in a case covered by Rule 49 appointed to officiate in a post carrying less pay than the pay of the post on which he holds a lien. The clear intention of the prescription is that except the two categories indicated above, in all other cases the pay to be paid on transfer shall not be less than of the post on which he holds a lien. Exception is made in case of a transfer where it is on account of inefficiency or misbehaviour. In a case where transfer is on account of inefficiency or misbehaviour, the same can be made to a post carrying less pay than the pay of the post on which he holds a lien. Similar is the position where a transfer is made on a written request. Where the transfer is otherwise than for inefficiency or misbehaviour or on a written request made by the transferred employee, the protection of pay is ensured. The High Court seems to have completely misconstrued the rule as if there cannot be any transfer in terms of FR 15 on account of inefficiency or misbehaviour. The view is clearly contrary to the pronounced intention of FR 15. 12. That brings us to the other question as to whether the use of the expression 'undesirable' warranted an enquiry before the transfer. Strong reliance was placed by learned counsel for the respondents on a decision of this Court in Jagdish Mitter v. The Union of India (AIR p. 456 Para-21) to contend that whenever there is a use of the word 'undesirable' it casts a stigma and it cannot be done without holding a regular enquiry. The submission is clearly without substance. The said case relates to use of the expression 'undesirable' in an order affecting the continuance in service by way of discharge. The decision has therefore no application to the facts of the present case. The manner, nature and extent of exercise to be undertaken by Courts/Tribunals in a case to adjudge whether it casts a stigma or constitutes one by way of punishment would also very much depend upon the consequences flowing from the order and as to whether it adversely affected any service conditions - status, service prospects financially and same yardstick, norms or standards cannot be applied to all category of cases. Transfers unless they involve any such adverse impact or visits the persons concerned with any penal consequences, are not required to be subjected to same type of scrutiny, approach and assessment as in the case of dismissal, discharge, reversion or termination and utmost latitude should be left with the department concerned to enforce discipline, decency and decorum in public service which are indisputably essential to maintain quality of public service and meet untoward administrative exigencies to ensure smooth functioning of the administration." (iii) ( Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2007) 8 SCC 150 ) "7. The scope of judicial review of transfer under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been settled by the Supreme Court in Rajendra Rao vs. Union of India, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Shri Bhagwan, State Bank of India vs. Anjan Sanyal. Following the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court in Vijay Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. and Onkarnath Tiwari vs. The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Deptt. has held that the principle of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions is that an order of transfer is a part of the service conditions of an employee which should not be interfered with ordinarily by a Court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 unless the Court finds that either the order is mala fide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer, or that the authorities who issued the orders, were not competent to pass the orders. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned transfer order of the appellant from Muzaffarnagar to Mawana, District Meerut was made at the instance of an MLA. On the other hand, it has been stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 that the appellant has been transferred due to complaints against him. In our opinion, even if the allegation of the appellant is correct that he was transferred on the recommendation of an MLA, that by itself would not vitiate the transfer order. After all, it is the duty of the representatives of the people in the legislature to express the grievances of the people and if there is any complaint against an official the State government is certainly within its jurisdiction to transfer such an employee. After all, it is the duty of the representatives of the people in the legislature to express the grievances of the people and if there is any complaint against an official the State government is certainly within its jurisdiction to transfer such an employee. There can be no hard and fast rule that every transfer at the instance of an M.P. or MLA would be vitiated. It all depends on the facts & circumstances of an individual case. In the present case, we see no infirmity in the impugned transfer order." (iv) ( Arun Kumar Chatterjee Vs. South Eastern Railway & Ors., (1985) 2 SCC 451 ) "11. That apart, the Railway Board's interpretation in the aforesaid Circular dated December 31, 1966, of the term 'officiating' in Rule 312 of the Railway Establishment Manual, as including both officiating as well as temporary staff, was apparently wrong. According to its ordinary connotation, the word 'officiating' is generally used when a servant having held one post permanently or substantively, is appointed to a post in a higher rank, but not permanently or substantively, while still retaining his lien on his substantive post i.e. Officiating in that post till his confirmation. Such officiating appointment may be made when there is a temporary vacancy in a higher post due to the death or retirement of the incumbent or otherwise. In contrast, the word 'temporary' usually denotes a person appointed in the civil service for the first time and the appointment is not permanent but temporary i.e. for the time being, with no right to the post." (v) ( E. P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., (1974) 4 SCC 3 ) "85. The last two grounds of challenge may be taken up together for consideration. Though we have formulated the third ground of challenge as a distinct and separate ground, it is really in substance and effect merely an aspect of the second ground based on violation of 14 and 16. Article 16 embodies the fundamental guarantee that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Article 16 embodies the fundamental guarantee that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Though enacted as a distinct and independent fundamental right because of its great importance as a principle ensuring equality of opportunity in public employment which is so vital to the building up of the new classless egalitarian society envisaged in the Constitution, Article 16 is only an instance of the application of the concept of equality enshrined in Article 14 . In other words, Article 14 is the genus while Article 16 is a species. Article 16 gives effect to the doctrine of equality in all matters relating to public employment. The basic principle which, therefore, informs both Articles 14 and 16 is equality and inhibition against discrimination. Now, what is the content and reach of this great equalising principle? It is a founding faith, to use the words of Bose. J., "a way of life", and it must not be subjected to a narrow pedantic or lexicographic approach. We cannot countenance any attempt to truncate its all-embracing scope and meaning, for to do so would be to violate its activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be "cribbed cabined and confined" within traditional and doctrinaire limits. From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14 , and if it affects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Article 16 . Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action an ensure fairness and equality of treatment. They require that State action must be based on valent relevant principles applicable alike to all similarly situate and it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations because that would be denial of equality. Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action an ensure fairness and equality of treatment. They require that State action must be based on valent relevant principles applicable alike to all similarly situate and it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations because that would be denial of equality. Where the operative reason for State action, as distinguished from motive inducing from the antechamber of the mind, is not legitimate and relevant but is extraneous and outside the area of permissible considerations, it would amount to mala fide exercise of power and that is hit by Articles 14 and 16. Mala fide exercise of Power and arbitrariness are different lethal radiations emanating from the same vice : in fact the matter comprehends the former. Both are inhibited by Articles 14 and 16. 88. Secondly, with the vast multitudinous activities in which a modern State is engaged, there are bound to be some posts which require for adequate discharge of their functions, high degree of intellect and specialised experience. It is always a difficult problem for the Government to find suitable officers for such specialised posts. There are not ordinarily many officers who answer the requirements of such specialised posts and the choice with the Government is very limited and this choice becomes all the more difficult, because some of these posts, though important and having onerous responsibilities, do not carry wide executive powers and officers may not, therefore, generally be willing to be transferred to those posts. The Government has in the circumstances to make the best possible choice it can, keeping in view the larger interests of the administration. When, in exercise of this choice, the Government transfers an officer from one post to another, the officer may feel unhappy because the new posts does not give him the same amplitude of powers which he had while holding the old post. But that does not make the transfer arbitrary. So long as the transfer is made on account of the exigencies of administration and is not from a higher post to a lower post with discriminatory preference of a junior for the higher post, it would be valid and not open to attack under Articles 14 and 16. 91. Now, when we examine this contention we must bear in mind two important considerations. 91. Now, when we examine this contention we must bear in mind two important considerations. In the first place, we must make it clear, despite a very strenuous argument to the contrary, that we are not called upon to investigate into acts of maladministration by the political Government headed by the second respondent. It is not within our province to embark on a far flung inquiry into acts of commission and omission charged against the second respondent in the administration of the affairs of Tamil Nadu. That is not the scope of the inquiry before us and we must decline to enter upon any such inquiry. It is one thing to say that the second respondent was guilty of misrule and another to say that he had malus enimus against the petitioner which was the operative cause of the displacement of the petitioner from the post of Chief Secretary. We are concerned only with the latter limited issue, not with the former popular issue. We cannot permit the petitioner to side track the issue and escape the burden of establishing hostility and malus enimus on the part of the second respondent by diverting our attention to incidents of suspicious exercise of executive power. That would be nothing short of drawing a red herring across the trail. The only question before us is whether the action taken by the respondents includes any component of mala fides; whether hostility and malus enimus against the petitioner were the operational cause of the transfer of the petitioner from the post of Chief Secretary. 92. Secondly, we must not also overlook that the burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility. Here the petitioner, who was himself once the Chief Secretary, has flung a series of charges of oblique conduct against the Chief Minister. That is in itself a rather extra-ordinary and unusual occurrence and if these charges are true, they are bound to shake the confidence of the people in the political custodians of power in the State, and therefore, the anxiety of the Court should be all the greater to insist on a high degree of proof. That is in itself a rather extra-ordinary and unusual occurrence and if these charges are true, they are bound to shake the confidence of the people in the political custodians of power in the State, and therefore, the anxiety of the Court should be all the greater to insist on a high degree of proof. In this context it may be noted that top administrators are often required to do acts which affect others adversely but which are necessary in the execution of their duties. These acts may land themselves to misconstruction and suspicion as to the bona fide of their author when the full facts and surrounding circumstances are not known. The Court would, therefore, be slow to draw dubious inferences from incomplete facts placed before it by a party, particularly when the imputations are grave and they are made against the holder of an office which has a high responsibility in the administration. Such is the judicial perspective in evaluating charges of unworthy conduct against ministers and other high authorities, not because of any special status which they are supposed to enjoy, nor because they are highly placed in social life or administrative set up these considerations are wholly irrelevant in judicial approach but because otherwise, functioning effectively would become difficult in a democracy. It is from this stand point that we must assess the merits of the allegations of mala fides made by the petitioner against the second respondent." 12. Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, while adopting the submission made by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the respondent No.1, has raised the following preliminary objections: (i). that the writ petitioner having also put to challenge the representation disposal order, dated 03.07.2020, by the Commissioner, RWD(1st Link Officer) and the Commissioner, RWD(1st Link Officer) having been not made as a party respondent, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of a necessary party; (ii). that the Chief Engineer, RWD, Eastern Zone, who had released the respondent No.2 from the establishment of Chief Engineer, RWD, (E/Z), to enable him to join at new place of posting at Pasighat having also not been made as a party respondent, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of a necessary party; and (iii). that the Chief Engineer, RWD, Eastern Zone, who had released the respondent No.2 from the establishment of Chief Engineer, RWD, (E/Z), to enable him to join at new place of posting at Pasighat having also not been made as a party respondent, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of a necessary party; and (iii). that the respondent No.2 having assumed the ex-parte charge of office of the Superintending Engineer, Pasighat on 09.07.2020, this Court should not disturb the present position by interfering with the impugned transfer order. 13. In support of his submission, Mr. Tara, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has relied on the following decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court: (i) ( Prabodh Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P & Ors., (1984) 4 SCC 251 ) "50. To summarize our conclusions: (1) A High Court ought not to hear and dispose of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least some of them being before it as respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large to join them as respondents individually, and, if the petitioners refuse to so join them, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition for non-joinder of necessary parties." (ii) ( State of U.P. Vs. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402 ) "7. It is too late in the day for any Government Servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or Rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision. 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. 9. The very questions involved, as found noticed by the High Court in these cases, being disputed questions of facts, there was hardly any scope for the High Court to generalise the situations based on its own appreciation and understanding of the prevailing circumstances as disclosed from some write-ups in journals or newspaper reports. Conditions of service or rights, which are personal to the parties concerned, are to be governed by rules as also the inbuilt powers of supervision and control in the hierarchy of the administration of State or any Authority as well as the basic concepts and well-recognised powers and jurisdiction inherent in the various authorities in the hierarchy. Conditions of service or rights, which are personal to the parties concerned, are to be governed by rules as also the inbuilt powers of supervision and control in the hierarchy of the administration of State or any Authority as well as the basic concepts and well-recognised powers and jurisdiction inherent in the various authorities in the hierarchy. All that cannot be obliterated by sweeping observations and directions unmindful of the anarchy which it may create in ensuring an effective supervision and control and running of administration merely on certain assumed notions of orderliness expected from the authorities effecting transfers. Even as the position stands, avenues are open for being availed of by anyone aggrieved, with the authorities concerned, the Courts and Tribunals, as the case may be, to seek relief even in relation to an order of transfer or appointment or promotion or any order passed in disciplinary proceedings on certain well-settled and recognized grounds or reasons, when properly approached and sought to be vindicated in the manner known to and in accordance with law. No such generalised directions as have been given by the High Court could ever be given leaving room for an inevitable impression that the Courts are attempting to take over the reigns of executive administration. Attempting to undertake an exercise of the nature could even be assailed as an onslaught and encroachment on the respective fields or areas of jurisdiction earmarked for the various other limbs of the State. Giving room for such an impression should be avoided with utmost care and seriously and zealously courts endeavour to safeguard the rights of parties." 14. Rival submissions advanced at the Bar, have received due consideration of this Court. 15. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it would be apposite to first deal with the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent No. 2, namely, that the order, dated 03.07.2020, passed by the Commissioner, (RWD) (1st Link Officer), having also been put to challenge in the writ petition and the Commissioner, (RWD) (1st Link Officer) having not been made as a party respondent, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of a necessary party. In reply to the preliminary objection raised, as above, of not making the Commissioner (RWD) (1st Link Officer) as a party respondent, the petitioner, in his affidavit-in-reply, has explained that the order dated 03.07.2020, passed by the Commissioner (RWD) (1st Link Officer), is an order disposing of the representation, dated 30.06.2020, submitted by the writ petitioner, in terms of a direction of this Court in WP(C) 182(AP)2020. According to the petitioner, the representation, dated 30.06.2020, was submitted to the Secretary, RWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh; but, before the representation submitted by the petitioner could be disposed of by the Secretary, RWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, the Secretary, RWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, had, in the meanwhile, retired from service. It was under that circumstances, the Commissioner (RWD), as a 1st Link Officer, acting on behalf of the Secretary, RWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, had disposed of the representation, dated 30.06.2020, submitted by the petitioner, by order dated 03.07.2020,. 16. Mr. K. Ete, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State respondent No. 1, has also explained that the Link Officer is appointed in a situation where the incumbent had, in the meanwhile, retired and no new incumbent in that place, had been posted, therein, like in the present case. In the instant case, as the Secretary, RWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, had retired from service and no new Secretary, RWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, at that relevant point in time, had been appointed in the meanwhile by the Government, a Link Officer of the rank of Commissioner was appointed as a Commissioner (RWD) (1st Link Officer), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, though the RWD has no post of Commissioner; and, accordingly, the Commissioner (RWD) (1st Link Officer), appointed, had disposed of the representation of the petitioner, dated 30.06.2020, by an order dated 03.07.2020, acting on behalf of the Secretary, RWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. In view of the explanation provided by the petitioner as well as by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, that there is no post of Commissioner (RWD) and the Commissioner (RWD) (1st Link Officer) had disposed of the representation, submitted by the petitioner, by order dated 03.07.2020 for and on behalf of the Secretary, RWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh and the Secretary, RWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, having been made as a party respondent, the Commissioner (RWD) (1st Link Officer) need not be made as a party respondent inasmuch as while disposing of the representation, submitted by the petitioner, by order dated 03.07.2020, the Commissioner (RWD) (1st Link Officer) had acted for and on behalf of the Secretary, RWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. Accordingly, the contention that the Commissioner (RWD) (1st Link Officer) ought to have been made as a party respondent and in his absence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the necessary party, is found to be not sustainable and the same is rejected. 17. The second preliminary objection, raised by the respondent No. 2, is that the respondent No. 2 was released from the establishment of the Chief Engineer, RWD, Eastern Zone, Itanagar, by the Chief Engineer, RWD, Eastern Zone, and the Chief Engineer, RWD, Eastern Zone, having also not been made a party respondent, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the necessary party. 18. The third preliminary objection raised by the respondent No. 2 is that in pursuance of the order, dated 03.07.2020, passed by the Commissioner (RWD) (1st Link Officer), rejecting the petitioner's representation dated 30.06.2020, the respondent No. 2 had assumed ex-parte charge of the Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Circle, Pasighat, on 09.07.2020 and the order of assuming ex-parte charge, dated 09.07.2020, having also not been put to challenge by the petitioner, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 19. 19. The release order issued to the respondent No. 2 by the Chief Engineer, RWD, Eastern Zone and assumption of ex-parte charge of the Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Circle, Pasighat, by the respondent No. 2, in pursuance thereof, being incidental to the impugned transfer and posting order dated 29.06.2020, issued against the petitioner vis- -vis the respondent No. 2; and, the transfer order dated 29.06.2020, being the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition, I am of the view that release order of the respondent No. 2 as well as the ex-parte assumption of charge by the respondent No. 2 need not be put to challenge which are merely a consequential orders incidental to the impugned transfer and posting order, dated 29.06.2020. Accordingly, the second and third preliminary objections raised by the respondent No. 2 also cannot be sustained and the same are rejected by holding that the writ petition need not be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties as both the necessary parties, namely, the Secretary, RWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, who had issued the impugned transfer order, as well as the respondent No. 2, who would be replacing the petitioner, have been named as party respondents in the writ petition. 20. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 in Prabodh Verma (supra) will not be applicable in the present case as both the parties, who would be vitally affected by the judgment and order that may be passed in the writ petition, namely, the Secretary, RWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh and the Respondent No. 2, have been arrayed as party respondents. The Chief Engineer, RWD, Eastern Zone, who had issued the release order to the respondent No. 2, cannot be a vitally affected person by the judgment and order that may be passed in the present writ petition as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabodh Verma (supra) inasmuch as the release order issued by the Chief Engineer, RWD, Eastern Zone, is merely a consequential order incidental to the transfer and posting order issued by the Secretary, RWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, who have already been made as a party respondent. The Chief Engineer, RWD, Eastern Zone, being only an authority to issue release order in terms of the impugned transfer and posting order, dated 29.06.2020, cannot be held to be a vitally affected person in the present writ proceeding and accordingly, the Chief Engineer, Eastern Zone, need not be made as a party respondent. So is the ex-parte assumption of charge of Office of the Superintending Engineer (RWC), Pasighat, dated 09.07.2020. Assumption of charge of an office being dependent on the order of transfer being validated by this Court, the same need not be put to challenge. 21. Having held the writ petition to be maintainable and not liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the necessary parties, the merits of the contentions raised by the rival parties may now be adverted to. 22. As soon as the impugned transfer order, dated 29.06.2020, was issued, the writ petitioner had filed a representation, dated 30.06.2020, to the Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, for reconsideration of the transfer order, dated 29.06.2020. The representation dated 30.06.2020 submitted by the petitioner which is appended as Annexure-V to the petition, is reproduced hereinbelow: "No.PF/R-01/2020                                     Dated Itanagar the 30th, June/2020 To The Secretary Rural Works Department Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. Through proper channel Sub: Representation Ref:- 1. Govt. No.SRWD-44/2002/618 dated Itanagar, the 29th June, 2020, and         2. Govt. No.PERS-46/2019 dated Itanagar, the 14th January, 2020. Sir, With reference cited above, I would like to state that the following few lines for your kind consideration and necessary action please. That sir, it is learnt that I have been transferred and posted vide Govt. order referred above on recommendation of Hon'ble Ministers, MP, and MLAs, which is clear violation of another Govt. order vide No. PERS-46/2019/90 dated Itanagar the 14th January, 2020. Moreover, Shri Renia Tamin who have been transferred and posted in my place is a SE (Functional). I therefore, request you kindly look into the matter and allow me to continue as SE, Rural Works Department, Pasighat Circle in the larger interest of the public. Yours Faithfully Sd/- (Hibu Tama) SE RWD, Pasighat Circle Copy to:- 1. The Chief Engineer, RWD (E/Z) Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar for information please." 23. I therefore, request you kindly look into the matter and allow me to continue as SE, Rural Works Department, Pasighat Circle in the larger interest of the public. Yours Faithfully Sd/- (Hibu Tama) SE RWD, Pasighat Circle Copy to:- 1. The Chief Engineer, RWD (E/Z) Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar for information please." 23. In the representation dated 30.06.2020, seeking reconsideration of the impugned transfer order, dated 29.06.2020; the petitioner had raised two fold contentions before the Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, for consideration:- firstly, that the impugned transfer order, dated 29.06.2020, has been issued on the recommendation of the Hon'ble MP, Hon'ble Ministers and Hon'ble MLAs which is a clear violation of State Government's order, dated 14.01.2020, issued by the Secretary, Personnel, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, vide Memo. No. PERS-46/2019/90, on 22.01.2020; and secondly, that the Respondent No. 2 who had been transferred and posted in his place at Pasighat, is a functional Superintending Engineer. As the aforesaid representation, dated 30.06.2020, was not being considered and acted upon by the Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, the petitioner had filed a writ petition being WP(c)182(AP)2020, which was disposed of by this Court, vide order, dated 01.07.2020, directing the Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, to consider the representation, dated 30.06.2020, within a period of 5 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order and till such time, the representation of the petitioner was considered and disposed of, the petitioner's place of posting at Pasighat, was directed, not to be disturbed. 24. In pursuance of the direction passed by this Court on 01.07.2020 in WP(c)182(AP)2020; the representation, dated 30.06.2020, submitted by the petitioner, was disposed of vide order, dated 03.07.2020, issued by one Sri Kaling Tayeng, Commissioner, Rural Works Department(1st Link Officer), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, under Memo. No. SRWD-44/2002/633. 24. In pursuance of the direction passed by this Court on 01.07.2020 in WP(c)182(AP)2020; the representation, dated 30.06.2020, submitted by the petitioner, was disposed of vide order, dated 03.07.2020, issued by one Sri Kaling Tayeng, Commissioner, Rural Works Department(1st Link Officer), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, under Memo. No. SRWD-44/2002/633. Though a direction to dispose of the petitioner's representation, dated 30.06.2020, was issued to the Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, the necessity for passing of an order in the name and authority of the Commissioner, Rural Works Department (1st Link Officer), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, as indicated in the order, itself, has been explained to be that the Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, had, in the meantime, retired from service and at that relevant point of time, no new Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, had been appointed, hence, the order, dated 03.07.2020, was issued on behalf of the Secretary, RWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, by an authority titled "Commissioner, Rural Works Department(1st Link Officer), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar." The order, dated 03.07.2020, issued by the Commissioner, Rural Works Department(1st Link Officer), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, which has been appended as Annexure-VII to the petition, is reproduced hereinbelow, for ready reference: "GOVERNMENT OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER (HOME, POL/PWD ETC) BLOCK NO.2, 3RD FLOOR CIVIL SECRETARIAT:: ITANAGAR SRWD-44/2002/633                                        Dated, Itanagar 3rd July, 2020 ORDER Vide order dated 1.7.2020, the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No.182 (AP) 2020 Shri Hibu Tama versus the State of AP and 2 others directed the Secretary (RWD) to dispose of the representation submitted by Shri Hibu Tama against his transfer from Pasighat to Itanagar. The Hon'ble High Court also directed that Shri Hibu Tama, Superintendent Engineer should not be disturbed from his present place of posting till his representation is considered and disposed off. 2. Vide order No.SRWD-44/2002/618 dated 29.06.2020, Shri Hibu Tama, SE, RWC Pasighat was transferred and posted as SSW, CE RWD (EZ) vice Shri Renia Tamin, SSW who was posted from office of the CE RWD (EZ) to RWC, Pasighat. Against the same, vide representation No.PF/R-01/2020 dated 30.6.2020, Shri Hibu Tama submitted that he has been posted out based on the recommendation of Hon'ble Ministers, MP and MLAs which is violation of another Govt. order dated 14.2.2020. Against the same, vide representation No.PF/R-01/2020 dated 30.6.2020, Shri Hibu Tama submitted that he has been posted out based on the recommendation of Hon'ble Ministers, MP and MLAs which is violation of another Govt. order dated 14.2.2020. Therefore, he requested to allow him to continue as SE, RWC, Pasighat. 3. The relevant file was called for and the representation along with relevant records perused. It is a fact that notes regarding his transfer from Pasighat and posting of Shri Renia Tamin in his place were given by many MLAs and few Ministers. All those notes also stated that Shri Hibu Tama has completed his normal tenure and due for transfer any time; hence all of them requested for posting of Shri Renia Tamin in his place. Records also show that Shri Hibu Tama was posted from CE office, Itanagar to Pasighat RWC on 22.09.2017 vide order No. SRWD-44/2002. Shri Hibu Tama has completed 2 years and 9 months as SE, RWC, Pasighat. The extant Govt. orders dealing with transfer and posting specify a minimum tenure of 2 years which has been more than completed in his case. 4. In view of the above, there is no rationale for cancelling the order dated 29.6.2020 transferring Shri Hibu Tama to Itanagar vice Shri Renia Tamin who has been posted in his place. The said order stands and the representation of Shri Hibu Tama stands disposed off. (Kaling Tayeng) Commissioner (RWD) (1ST Link Officer)" 25. On perusal of the aforesaid order, dated 03.07.2020, issued by the Commissioner, Rural Works Department(1st Link Officer), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, purportedly, for and on behalf of the Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, it is noticed that the prayer made by the petitioner in his representation, dated 30.06.2020, for reconsideration of the impugned transfer order, dated 29.06.2020, have been declined on the ground that as the writ petitioner had completed 2 years and 9 months as Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Circle, Pasighat, under the Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, there is no rationale for cancelling the impugned transfer order, dated 29.06.2020. 26. 26. As the contentions raised by the petitioner in his representation, dated 30.06.2020, apparently, was not dealt with by the Commissioner, Rural Works Department(1st Link Officer), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, in his order, dated 03.07.2020, the writ petitioner had submitted another representation, dated 06.07.2020, to the Commissioner/Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, reiterating the twin contentions raised by him in his earlier representation, dated 30.06.2020, that the impugned transfer order, dated 29.06.2020, was issued in violation of the State Government's Notification, dated 14.01.2020, issued by the Secretary, Personnel, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, on 22.01.2020, and that the Respondent No. 2 was a functional Superintending Engineer and therefore, the impugned transfer order, dated 29.06.2020, could not have been issued by the respondent authorities, replacing the petitioner by a functional Superintending Engineer like the Respondent No. 2. The representation, dated 06.07.2020, appended as Annexure-X to the petition, is reproduced hereinbelow, for ready reference: "No.PF/R-01/2020/                                    Dated Itanagar, the 6th July/2020 To, The Commissioner/ Secretary Rural Works Department Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. (Through proper channel) Sub :- Representation Ref :- 1. Govt transferred and posting order vide No. SRWD-44/2002/618 dated             Itanagar, the 29th June, 2020. 2. Govt. Office Memorandum on 'Transfer and posting of Officers' vide               No.PERS-46/2019 dated Itanagar, the 14th January,2020. 3. My Representation No.PF/R-01/2020 dated Itanagar the 30th                June/2020. 4. WP(C)182(AP)2020 and Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Itanagar                Permanent Bench, Naharlagun Judgement directing the Secretary,                RWD, Itanagar to disposed off the representation of the Petitioner                within 5 days Dated 02.07.2020. 5. Govt. order No.SRWD-44/633 Dated Itanagar 3rd July, 2020 disposing               off the representation stating that there is no rationale for cancelling               the order dated 29.06.2020 Sir, With references cited above, I beg to state the following few lines for your kind consideration and necessary action please. That sir, it is reiterated that I have been transferred and posted vide Govt. order referred above on recommendation of Hon'ble Ministers, MP, and MLAs, which is cleared from the note-sheets obtained through RTI by my advocate, and is a direct violation of Office Memorandum vide No. PERS-46/2019/90 dated Itanagar the 14th January, 2020. Interestingly, the note-sheets of all the Hon'ble Ministers, HMP, and HMLAs are identical in verbatim irresistibly leads to conclude that it came from one source in different dates and that public interest certainly was not paramount in the mind of persons who signed the note-sheets. Interestingly, the note-sheets of all the Hon'ble Ministers, HMP, and HMLAs are identical in verbatim irresistibly leads to conclude that it came from one source in different dates and that public interest certainly was not paramount in the mind of persons who signed the note-sheets. It is a more or less the best mechanical exercise. As such, it is humbly submitted that all the recommendations of Hon'ble Members is devoid of any public exigency in this instant transfer and posting case. Moreover Shri Renia Tamin who have been transferred and posted in my place is a SE(Functional) whereas the functional SE should be allow if there is no regular SE to hold the post in the 'Circle' as regards to administration point of view because the 'Circle' has to superintend many divisions headed by senior EEs. That sir, "Govt. order vide No. SRWD-44/633 dated Itanagar 3rd July, 2020 disposing off my representation stating that there is no rationale for cancelling the order dated 29.6.2020 as I have completed 2 years and 9 months as SE, RWC, Pasighat extent Govt. order specify minimum tenure of 2 years". Yes, I do humbly submitted that I have completed 2 years and 8 months as I took over the charges of SE, RWC, Pasighat on the 3rd November/2017. Also, humbly submitted that I always obeyed the Govt. order specifically 'Transferred and posting order' even if I have not completed the minimum tenure of 2 years whose evidences can be seen from my service records. But my representation was about (1). a direct violation of Office Memorandum on 'Transfer and Posting of Officers' vide No.PERS-46/2019 dated Itanagar, the 14th January,2020, on recommendation of the Hon'bles, and (2). Transferred and posting of SE (functional) in the Circle by transferred and posting out Senior SE. I therefore, request you again, kindly look into the matter seriously and call all the related documents and if my representation is genuine and against injustice, kindly allow me to continue as SE, Rural Works Department, Pasighat Circle for the larger interest of the public. Also, request you to grant me permission to give copy of it to His Excellency the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh as any Govt. order is issued in the name of the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh. Yours faithfully Sd/- (Hibu Tama) SE RWD, Pasighat Circle Copy to:- 1. The Chief Engineer, RWD (E/Z) Govt. Also, request you to grant me permission to give copy of it to His Excellency the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh as any Govt. order is issued in the name of the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh. Yours faithfully Sd/- (Hibu Tama) SE RWD, Pasighat Circle Copy to:- 1. The Chief Engineer, RWD (E/Z) Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh,                     Itanagar for information please." 27. As the second representation, dated 06.07.2020, submitted by the petitioner to the Commissioner/Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, remained unattended to by the authority concerned, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, challenging the impugned transfer order, dated 29.06.2020, and the order, dated 03.07.2020, issued by the Commissioner, Rural Works Department(1st Link Officer), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, and also praying for a direction to the Respondent No. 1 i.e. Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, to dispose of the petitioner's second representation, dated 06.07.2020. 28. As the grievance raised by the writ petitioner for reconsideration of the impugned transfer order, dated 29.06.2020, have not been addressed to, either, in the order, dated 03.07.2020, issued by the Commissioner, Rural Works Department(1st Link Officer), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, or, by considering and disposal of the second representation, dated 06.07.2020, submitted by the petitioner to the Commissioner/Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar; I propose to examine the twin contentions raised by the petitioner in his representation, dated 06.07.2020, instead of referring the matter back to the respondent authorities for disposal of the petitioner's second representation, dated 06.07.2020, as one of the earlier representation, dated 30.06.2020, have been disposed of by order, dated 03.07.2020, without, however, dealing with the twin contentions raised by the petitioner in his representation, dated 30.06.2020. 29. The first contention of the writ petitioner is that the impugned transfer order, dated 29.06.2020, has been issued in violation of the Office Memorandum, dated 14.01.2020, issued by the Secretary, Personnel, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, on 22.01.2020, vide Memo. No. PERS-46/2019/90. 29. The first contention of the writ petitioner is that the impugned transfer order, dated 29.06.2020, has been issued in violation of the Office Memorandum, dated 14.01.2020, issued by the Secretary, Personnel, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, on 22.01.2020, vide Memo. No. PERS-46/2019/90. The order dated 14.01.2020, annexed as Annexure-III to the writ petition, is quoted hereinbelow, for ready reference: GOVERNMENT OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AP CIVIL SECRETARIAT BLOCK NO.IV: 4TH FLOOR ITANAGAR No.PERS-46/2019                                 Dated, Itanagar the 14th January 2020 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject :- Transfer and Posting of Officers It is hereby reiterated that, in terms of, OM/No.PERS-128/2004, dated 19th December 2008, the transfer and posting of all categories of officers including IAS, IFS, IPS, APCS, APSS and Engineers is done only on merit functional requirement and public interest as per detailed policy guidelines issued vide No.APPTT-19/90 dated 2nd June 1998, and Rule 20 of The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. No recommendation on transfer and posting shall be entertained by the Government. Any recommendation in this regard in favour of any Government employees shall be viewed adversely against the Government official concerned. Any violation of the above decision shall be viewed seriously and action shall be initiated against the violator as per rules. By order and in the name of the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh. Sd/- (Juhi Mukherjee), IAS Secretary(Personnel) Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar Memo NO.PERS-46/2019/90                      Dated, Itanagar 22nd January 2020. 30. On perusal of the aforesaid Office Memorandum, dated 14.01.2020, issued by the Secretary, Personnel, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, on 22.01.2020, it is noticed that the State Government in the aforesaid O.M. has reiterated that the transfer and posting of all categories of officers are done on merit functional requirement and public interest as per the policy guidelines issued by the Government vide Order No. APTT/90/19 dated 02.06.1998; Office Memorandum, dated 19.12.2008, vide Memo. No. PERS-128/2004; and Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services(Conduct) Rules, 1964. It is further provided in the aforesaid Office Memorandum, that no recommendation on transfer and posting shall be entertained by the Government. Any recommendation in this regard in favour of any Government employees shall be viewed adversely against the Government official concerned. It also provides that any violation of the above decision shall be viewed seriously and action shall be initiated against the violator as per rules. 31. Any recommendation in this regard in favour of any Government employees shall be viewed adversely against the Government official concerned. It also provides that any violation of the above decision shall be viewed seriously and action shall be initiated against the violator as per rules. 31. Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services(Conduct) Rules, 1964, which have been mentioned in the above Office Memorandum, dated 14.01.2020, issued by the Secretary, Personnel, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, on 22.01.2020, provides as under: 20. Canvassing of non-official or other outside influence - No Government servant shall bring or attempt to bring any political or other outside influence to bear upon any superior authority to further his interests in respect of matters pertaining to his service under Government. 32. In this regard, a Government of India's order, dated 08.08.1977, issued under Memo. No. D.G., P & T. No. 15/23/76-Disc. I, has also been referred to by Mr. Tama, learned counsel for the petitioner, which provides as under: "Canvassing of non-official and other outside influence in matters arising out of their service: (1) Rule 20 of C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964, lays down no Government servant shall bring or attempt to bring any political or other outside influence to bear upon any superior authority to further his interests in respect of matters pertaining to his service under the Government. Instructions in this regard have also been issued from time to time in Director-General's Circulars. In spite of repeated instructions on the subject, it has come to notice that the Government servants resort to bring non-official and other outside influence to further their service interests. (2) Any high dignitary or Member of Parliament normally sponsors the case of an individual Government servant only when he is approached or pressed to do so. If, therefore, any reference is received on behalf of a Government servant from dignitary/Member of Parliament, it would be assumed that it has been taken up only at the instance of the Government servant and action will be taken against him for violation of Rule 20 and instructions issued thereunder. (3) .......................................... (4) ......................................." 33. If, therefore, any reference is received on behalf of a Government servant from dignitary/Member of Parliament, it would be assumed that it has been taken up only at the instance of the Government servant and action will be taken against him for violation of Rule 20 and instructions issued thereunder. (3) .......................................... (4) ......................................." 33. From the conjoint reading of Office Memorandum, dated 14.01.2020, issued by the Secretary, Personnel, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, on 22.01.2020; Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services(Conduct) Rules, 1964; and Government of India's Order, dated 08.08.1977; it appears that Government servant is not supposed to bring or attempt to bring any political or other outside influence to bear upon any superior authority to further his/her interests in respect of matters pertaining to his/her service under the Government. Under the Office Memorandum, dated 14.01.2020, issued by the Secretary, Personnel, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, on 22.01.2020; if any Government servant indulges to bring any political or other outside influence or recommendation of his/her transfer and posting, the same is made liable to be viewed seriously by the authority and an action against such officer is also contemplated to be initiated as per rules. 34. In the instant case, the Respondent No. 2 has been recommended for his posting as Superintending Engineer at Pasighat Rural Works Circle, by a Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha East Parliamentary Constituency, by his U.O. Note, dated 12.12.2019; by Minister, H&FW, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, by his U.O. Note, dated 07.01.2020; by Minister, Industry, T&H, etc., Government of Arunachal Pradesh, by his U.O. Note, dated 07.01.2020; and by MLAs of 37 Pasighat East Assembly Constituency, 36 Nari Koyu Assembly Constituency, 29 Basar Assembly Constituency, 32 Rumgong Assembly Constituency, and 40 Mariyang-Geku Assembly Constituency, by their U.O. Notes, dated 07.01.2020 and 08.01.2020, respectively; have not been disputed by the respondent authorities. The above-referred U.O. Notes have been annexed as Annexure-II series to the petition. 35. It would also be evident from the File Noting, dated 15.05.2020, that the transfer and posting of the writ petitioner vis- -vis the Respondent No. 2 was processed on file by referring to the U.O. Notes of the Ministers and MLAs as referred to hereinabove, which eventually, led to the issuance of the impugned transfer order, dated 29.06.2020, on being ultimately approved by the Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State. The file notings referred to above, are part of the Annexure-II series to the petition. 36. The transfer and posting of the petitioner vis- -vis the Respondent No. 2 was processed on file on the recommendation of the Ministers and MLAs of the State, as has been contended by the petitioner in this petition, has also not been disputed by the respondent authorities. Thus, it is an admitted fact that the impugned transfer and posting of the petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 vide impugned transfer order, dated 29.06.2020, have been issued on the recommendation made by the Ministers and MLAs as indicated hereinabove; and, accordingly, it can safely be assumed as provided under the Government of India's Order, dated 08.08.1977, referred to hereinabove, in reference to Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services(Conduct) Rules, 1964; that the Respondent No. 2 had brought about a political influence to bear upon his superior authority to further his interests in respect of his posting at Pasighat Rural Works Circle. 37. Despite the factum of Respondent No. 2 bringing in a political influence upon his superior authority being on record, the respondent authorities have taken no steps to initiate action against the Respondent No. 2 as provided in the Office Memorandum, dated 14.01.2020, issued by the Secretary, Personnel, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, on 22.01.2020. Instead of initiating an action against the respondent No. 2 as contemplated under Office Memorandum, dated 14.01.2020, the respondent authority have chosen to issue the impugned transfer order, dated 29.06.2020, despite the Respondent No. 2 having brought a political influence on his superior authority to further his interests in respect of the matter pertaining to his service under the Government. 38. In that view of the matter, this Court, by rigorously holding the executive to profess the standard they are meant to profess, could have interfered with the impugned transfer order, dated 29.06.2020, yet, in view of the restricted scope of judicial review available in respect of the transfer order and also having taken note of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Masood Ahmad (supra) that the recommendation of the Ministers and Members of Legislatures by itself, may not, vitiate the transfer order, would proceed to examine the second contention raised by the petitioner, viz; the respondent No. 2, being functional Superintending Engineer drawing his own pay of Executive Engineer, cannot replace the petitioner. 39. On perusal of the impugned order dated 29.06.2020, issued by the Secretary, RWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, it is noticed that the respondent No. 2, working as Superintending Engineer, SSW, in the office of the Chief Engineer, RWD (Eastern Zone), has been transferred and posted as Superintending Engineer, RWC, Pasighat, against the petitioner, who have been posted as Superintending Engineer, SSW, in the office of the Chief Engineer, RWD (Eastern Zone), Itanagar, vice the respondent No. 2. It appears from the order, dated 29.06.2020, that the transfer order is an interse transfer of Superintending Engineers of Rural Works Department. 40. In order to appreciate the contention raised by the writ petitioner that the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 are not similarly situated officers and that the petitioner is a Superintending Engineer whereas the respondent No. 2 is an Executive Engineer, who have been allowed to function as a Superintending Engineer in his own scale of pay, as well as the rival contention raised by the respondents that the petitioner is an officiating Superintending Engineer and the respondent No. 2 is a functional Superintending Engineer and that both the petitioner and the respondent No. 2, being not the regular Superintending Engineers, are similarly situated officers/officials, may now be examined and considered. 41. The petitioner was promoted from the post of Executive Engineer (RWD), to the post of Superintending Engineer (RWD) on officiating basis, by an order dated 21.06.2011, issued by the Commissioner, RWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, vide No. SRWD-03/2003, which is reproduced hereinbelow - GOVERNMENT OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH SECRETARIAT : RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT ITANAGAR No. SRWD-03/2003                                  Dated Itanagar, the 21st June 2011 ORDER The Governor of Arunachal Pradesh is pleased to promote Shri Hibu Tama, Executive Engineer (RWD), to the post of Superintending Engineer (RWD) on officiating basis in the scale of pay of Rs. 37400-67000 + 8700 Grade Pay PM plus other allowances as admissible under Rules from time to time in Arunachal Pradesh with effect from the date of his joining. 37400-67000 + 8700 Grade Pay PM plus other allowances as admissible under Rules from time to time in Arunachal Pradesh with effect from the date of his joining. The officiating promotion will not confer upon him any right to claim regular promotion in the post and officiating service rendered will not count for purpose of seniority unless his promotion is regularized by the DPC subject to the fulfillment of requisite criteria as per Recruitment Rules of SE. Other terms and conditions of service which are not specified herein shall be governed by the relevant rules and others in force from time to time in Arunachal Pradesh. On being promoted to the post of SE(RWD), and in the interest of Public Service, the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh is pleased to order transfer and posting of following Superintending Engineers(RWD) as shown against each with immediate effect until further orders. Sl. No. Name of Officers Present place of posting Posted to 1. Shri Hibu Tama, SE Promotee SE (RWC), Rupa vice Shri T. K. Tagin, SE 2. Shri T. K. Tagin, SE SE(RWC), Rupa SE(RWC), Itanagar vice Shri D. Nyodu, SE 3. Shri D. Nyodu, SE SE(RWC), Itanagar AS SSW/SQC (HQ) SD/- (Tape Bagra), IAS Commissioner (RWD), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. Memo No. SRWD-03/2003                       Dated Itanagar, the 23rd June 2011. 42. From the promotion order of the petitioner, quoted hereinabove, it appears that the petitioner was promoted from the post of Executive Engineer (RWD) to the post of Superintending Engineer (RWD) on officiating basis in the scale of pay of Rs. 37,000-67,000 + 8,700 Grade Pay PM plus other allowances as admissible under Rules from time to time in Arunachal Pradesh with effect from the date of his joining. It was further provided in the order that the officiating promotion will not confer upon him any right to claim regular promotion in the post and officiating service rendered will not count for the purpose of seniority unless his promotion is regularized by the DPC subject to the fulfillment of requisite criteria as per Recruitment Rules of Superintending Engineer. The order of promotion dated 21.06.2011 though promotes the petitioner on officiating basis in the post of Superintending Engineer, the petitioner, however, has been provided with the scale of pay attached to the post of Superintending Engineer along with other allowances as admissible under the Rules. The order of promotion dated 21.06.2011 though promotes the petitioner on officiating basis in the post of Superintending Engineer, the petitioner, however, has been provided with the scale of pay attached to the post of Superintending Engineer along with other allowances as admissible under the Rules. The petitioner, in pursuance of the promotion order, dated 21.06.2011, continues to work as a Superintending Engineer on officiating basis. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is eligible for a regular promotion in the post of Superintending Engineer under the Superintending Engineer Common Recruitment Rules, 2014. 43. While the petitioner continued to work as Superintending Engineer, though on officiating basis, on and from the year 2011, the respondent authorities, in the meanwhile, by a Notification, dated 01.11.2019, issued by the Secretary, RWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, vide Memo No. SRWD.20/2005/405, fixed the final inter-se seniority position of Superintending Engineers under the Rural Works Department, Arunachal Pradesh, wherein, the petitioner has been placed at Sl. No. 5 of the Seniority List of Superintending Engineer as on 11.10.2019. The said Notification, dated 01.11.2019, issued on 07.11.2019, notifying the final inter-se seniority list of the Superintending Engineer under the Rural Works Department, has been annexed as Annexure-XII to the affidavit-inreply by the petitioner to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2. 44. The final inter-se seniority list of Superintending Engineers notification, dated 01.11.2019, is reproduced hereinbelow - GOVERNMENT OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH SECRETARIAT RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT BLOCK NO. 03, 3RD FLOOR ROOM NO. 08 ITANAGAR NO.SRWD.20/2005                                  Dated Itanagar, the 1st Nov 2019 NOTIFICATION The final Inter Se seniority list of Superintending Engineer under Rural Works Department Arunachal Pradesh shown in Annexure A is notified after circulation of the provisional gradation list of Superintending Engineer (RWD) vide Office Memorandum No.SRWD.20/2005 Dtd 21/08/2019 and necessary correction. No further representation on this final seniority list will be entertained hereafter. Sd/- (Kapa Kholie), IAS Secretary (RWD) Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar Memo. NO.SRWD.20/2005/405                     Dated Itanagar, the 07 Nov 2019 ANNEXURE-A PROVISIONAL INTERSE SENIORITY LIST OF SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (CIVIL) UNDER RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT ARUNACHAL PRADESH AS ON 11.10.2019 SL. No further representation on this final seniority list will be entertained hereafter. Sd/- (Kapa Kholie), IAS Secretary (RWD) Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar Memo. NO.SRWD.20/2005/405                     Dated Itanagar, the 07 Nov 2019 ANNEXURE-A PROVISIONAL INTERSE SENIORITY LIST OF SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (CIVIL) UNDER RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT ARUNACHAL PRADESH AS ON 11.10.2019 SL. NO NAME OF OFFICERS EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION DATE OF BIRTH DATE OF APPOINTMENT AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DATE OF JOINING IN THE PRESENT POST REMARK 1 Shri Doli Nyodu Degree 29-04-1964 17/05/1996 14/08/2006 Against Reserved Vacancy 2 Shri T. Tamut Degree 06-07-1963 19-11-1999 19-11-2005 Against Un-Reserved Vacancy 3 Shri T. K. Tagin Degree 16-04-1964 19-11-1999 09-08-2006 Against Reserved Vacancy 4 Shri Nyai Rigia Degree 14-06-1967 06-05-1999 04-12-2009 Against Un-Reserved Vacancy 5 Shri Hibu Tama Degree 02-03-1972 04-05-1999 23-06-2011 Against Reserved Vacancy 6 Shri Tannu Tamin Degree 16/06/1969 06-11-2004 23/09/2014 Subject to regularization of officiating 7 Shri T. Paktung Degree 02-05-1979 06-11-2004 26-12-2004 do 8 Shri Marnya Chiram Degree 01/02/1968 08-08-2017 27/04/2017 do 9 Shri N. L. Kamin Degree 24/09/1969 08-08-2017 27/04/2017 do 10 Shri Y. P. Singh Degree 14/02/1963 06-11-2004 27/04/2017 On deputation to Bihar Govt. from 13/03/2018 Sd/- Under Secretary (RWD) Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 45. On perusal of the final inter-se seniority list of the Superintending Engineers under Rural Works Department, Arunachal Pradesh, reproduced as above, it is noticed that the petitioner was appointed as Executive Engineer on 04.05.1999 and joined in the present post of Superintending Engineer on 23.06.2011 against the reserved vacancy. Apart from the petitioner, there are 9 (nine) other Superintending Engineers and the one at Sl. No. 10 is indicated to be on deputation to Bihar Government from 13.03.2018. 46. From the factual narration made hereinabove in respect of the position and status of the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner is found to be a Superintending Engineer having promoted as such by an order dated 21.06.2011 on officiating basis and joined in the said post on 23.06.2011 against the reserved vacancy as well as placed at Sl. No. 5 of the final inter-se seniority list of the Superintending Engineers maintained by the Department. 47. No. 5 of the final inter-se seniority list of the Superintending Engineers maintained by the Department. 47. The respondent No. 2 was allowed to look after the charge of Superintending Engineer(C) by an order dated 07.06.2018, issued on 08.06.2018 by the Secretary (RWD), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, vide Memo No. SRWD-03/2003 (Pt.)/620, which is reproduced herein below - GOVERNMENT OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH SECRETARIAT: RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT ITANAGAR NO.SRWD 03/2003(Pt)                                 Dated Itanagar the 7th June 2018 ORDER In exigencies of works, the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh is pleased to allow the following Executive Engineers of RWD to lookafter the charge of Superintending Engineer (C) on purely temporary basis at their own scale of pay from the date of their joining in the post and until further order. 1. Shri Renia Tamin, EE RWD Division Daporijo. 2. Shri N. Nyodu, EE DPIU-II Basar. The above stop gap arrangement is made subject to the following terms and conditions:- 1. The look after charge is made purely on temporary basis due to exigencies of works in the Department. 2. The look after charge shall not confer on them any right to claim continuation and seniority in the post unless their service is regularized by a duly constituted DPC as per the provision of Recruitment Rules attached to the post. 3. The look after charge shall be terminated at any time without assigning any reasons and notice. Other terms and conditions which are not specified herein shall be governed by the rules and regulation of the Government in force from time to time. On the above temporary arrangement made to the post of Superintending Engineers, the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh is pleased to make following posting arrangement of SEs/SSWs with immediate effect and until further order:- SL. NO Name and designation of Officers Present place of posting New place of posting Remarks 1. Shri Tabu Paktung, SE SSW O/o CE, RWD (E/Z)-Cum-SQC As full time SQC attached to CEO, ARRDA He will draw his pay and allowances against SSW O/o CE, RWD (E/Z) 2. Shri Renia Tamin, EE EE, RWD Daporijo Division As SSW, O/o CE, RWD (E/Z) Shri Michi Nibo, EE DPIUIII Dumporijo and Baririjo CD Blocks senior most EE under Daporijo Division to look after the charge of RWD Daporijo Division in addition to his normal duties till regular EE is posted. 3. ... ... ... ... The officers at Sl. Shri Renia Tamin, EE EE, RWD Daporijo Division As SSW, O/o CE, RWD (E/Z) Shri Michi Nibo, EE DPIUIII Dumporijo and Baririjo CD Blocks senior most EE under Daporijo Division to look after the charge of RWD Daporijo Division in addition to his normal duties till regular EE is posted. 3. ... ... ... ... The officers at Sl. 2 & 3 should join at their new respective posting place within 12(twelve) days from date of issue of this order. Sd/- Kapa Kholie, IAS Secretary (RWD) Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar Memo NO.SRWD-03/2003(Pt)/620                     Dated, Itanagar the 08th June 2018 48. The respondent No. 2, on the other hand, is an Executive Engineer in the Department of RWD, which would be evident from the order dated 07.06.2018, issued on 08.06.2018 by the Secretary, RWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, vide Memo No. SRWD-03/2003 (Pt.)/620, which is an order allowing the respondent No. 2 to look after the charge of Superintending Engineer (C) on purely temporary basis at his own scale of pay from the date of joining in the post and until further orders. 49. From perusal of the order dated 07.06.2018, referred to hereinabove, which has been annexed as Annexure-VIII to the writ petition, it appears that the respondent No. 2 was allowed to temporarily look after the charge of Superintending Engineer (C) in his own scale of pay as a stop gap arrangement subject to the following terms and conditions :- 1) The look after charge is made purely on temporary basis due to exigencies of work in the Department; 2) The look after charge shall not confer on him any right to claim continuation and seniority in the post unless his service is regularized by a duly constituted DPC as per the provision of Recruitment Rules attached to the post; and 3) The look after charge shall be terminated at any time without assigning any reasons and notice. 50. On the above terms and conditions the respondent No. 2, who was at the relevant point of time working as Executive Engineer, RWD, Daporijo Division, was posted as SSW in the Office of the Chief Engineer, RWD (Eastern Zone). 51. 50. On the above terms and conditions the respondent No. 2, who was at the relevant point of time working as Executive Engineer, RWD, Daporijo Division, was posted as SSW in the Office of the Chief Engineer, RWD (Eastern Zone). 51. From the above factual narration with regard to the status and position of the respondent No. 2, it is noticed that respondent No. 2 is an Executive Engineer in the Department, who have been allowed to temporarily look after the charge of Superintending Engineer (C) in his own scale of pay of Executive Engineer as a stop gap arrangement in the exigencies of work in the Department and thereafter, the respondent No. 2, who was working as Executive Engineer, RWD, Daporijo Division, was brought to the Office of the Chief Engineer, RWD, Eastern Zone, to look after the charge of SSW in the Office of Chief Engineer, RWD, Eastern Zone as a stop gap arrangement in the exigency of service. 52. The petitioner, therefore, is a Superintending Engineer having been promoted on officiating basis in a reserved vacancy by an order dated 21.06.2011 in the scale of pay attached to the Superintending Engineer plus other allowances as admissible under the Rules from time to time. The petitioner having been promoted, as above, has also been put at Sl. No. 5 of the final inter-se seniority list of the Superintending Engineers under Rural Works Department by a notification dated 01.11.2019, issued on 07.11.2019, by the Secretary, RWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, vide Memo No. SRWD/20/2005/405. Though there is no material to indicate that the officiating promotion given to the petitioner vide order dated 21.06.2011 has been regularized by the DPC, yet, the respondent authorities have issued a final inter-se seniority list of the Superintending Engineers under the Rural Works Department, as indicated above, putting the petitioner at Sl. No. 5 of the final interse seniority list of the Superintending Engineers. Ordinarily, a final inter-se seniority list of the Superintending Engineers and the subsequent inclusion of the writ petitioner therein should have been done after the writ petitioner is given a regular promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer against the reserved post. However, it is found that the writ petitioner along with 2 (two) others were promoted as Superintending Engineer by an order dated 21.06.2011 against the vacant posts of Superintending Engineer. However, it is found that the writ petitioner along with 2 (two) others were promoted as Superintending Engineer by an order dated 21.06.2011 against the vacant posts of Superintending Engineer. The petitioner having joined as Executive Engineer on 04.05.1999 has been eligible to be considered for promotion in the post of Superintending Engineer since 2009 itself as the relevant Recruitment Rules provides a minimum length of service of 10 (ten) years regular service as Executive Engineer. It appears that the petitioner was given officiating promotion as Superintending Engineer in the year 2011 in a vacant post of the Superintending Engineer pending holding of the Departmental Promotion Committee(DPC) for consideration of the regular promotion of the writ petitioner along with others if found suitable as per the Recruitment Rules. It further appears that the respondent authorities, since the year 2011, have not been able to constitute the Departmental Promotion Committee(DPC) as contemplated under the relevant Recruitment Rules for the post of Superintending Engineer for consideration of regular promotion of the petitioner along with others, if any, in the post of Superintending Engineer. It, therefore, appears that it is because of the inability of the respondent authorities to constitute a Departmental Promotion Committee, as contemplated under the relevant Recruitment Rules, that the writ petitioner continues to be an officiating Superintending Engineer in a reserved vacancy since the year 2011. In the above backdrop, the final inter-se seniority list of the Superintending Engineers under the Rural Works Department, vide notification dated 01.11.2019, issued on 07.11.2019, by the Secretary, RWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, putting the petitioner at Sl. No. 5, needs to be understood as a recognition of the failure of the authorities to constitute the Departmental Promotion Committee(DPC) for the purpose of regularization of the officiating promotion given to the petitioner as far back as 9 (nine) years. Thus, the writ petitioner, though strictly speaking, is an officiating Superintending Engineer, yet, the writ petitioner has been provided with the scale of pay attached to the Superintending Engineer along with other allowances admissible from time to time. In other words, the writ petitioner for all intent and purpose, has been treated as Superintending Engineer, having been given the status and position of the Superintending Engineer by the respondent authorities. 53. In other words, the writ petitioner for all intent and purpose, has been treated as Superintending Engineer, having been given the status and position of the Superintending Engineer by the respondent authorities. 53. The respondent No. 2, on the other hand, is an Executive Engineer holding the substantive post of Executive Engineer drawing the scale of pay attached to the Executive Engineer but as a stop gap arrangement allowed to look after the charge of Superintending Engineer (C) on purely temporary basis and for that purpose, brought to the Office of the Chief Engineer, RWD, Eastern Zone only the other day vide order dated 07.06.2018 to look after the charge of SSW in the exigency of works in the Department. The petitioner and the respondent No. 2, therefore, are not similarly placed officers/officials in the Department vested with same status and position. 54. What now, therefore, requires to be determined, is, can the writ petitioner and the respondent No. 2, who are not similarly placed officers in the Department vested with the same position and status, can be transferred inter-se ? 55. 54. What now, therefore, requires to be determined, is, can the writ petitioner and the respondent No. 2, who are not similarly placed officers in the Department vested with the same position and status, can be transferred inter-se ? 55. The long line of precedents cited at the Bar by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, as referred to hereinbefore, lays down the well recognized principles of law vis- vis the transfer order, which are, as under:- a) That no government servant has any vested right to remain posted at a particular place or position; b) That transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary; c) That unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or Rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot be lightly be interfered with as a matter of course; d) That the transfer order should not be interfered with unless official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments; e) That it is for the employer to decide as to which of the employee should be posted at which of the place; f) That the transfer and posting should be made in the administrative exigencies and in public interest; g) That the employer is the best judge to decide who should be transferred where; h) That the transfer made on the recommendation of the political representative such as an MLA by itself would not vitiate the transfer order after all it is the duty of the representative of the people and the legislature to express the grievances of the people; i) That whenever a mala fide is alleged in the transfer made, the burden of establishing mala fide lies very heavily on the person who alleges it; and j) That the allegations of mala fide are often more easily made than proved and the very seriousness of such allegations demand proof of a high order of credibility. 56. 56. None of the precedents cited at the Bar, as referred to hereinabove, by the learned counsels for the respective parties, however, deals with a case similar to the one which has surfaced in this litigation except WP(C) 257 (AP)2016 (Shri Niapung Konia Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.), decided on 28.09.2016 by this Court. In the said case, the petitioner, who was an Executive Engineer in the PHE & WS Department, Daporijo Division for more than 7 (seven) years, was sought to be replaced by the respondent No. 4, whose substantive post in the PHE & WS Department was an Assistant Engineer (Civil) and was allowed to hold functional charge of Executive Engineer (Civil) on temporary basis in his own scale of pay band/grade pay as Assistant Engineer (Civil) without extra remuneration. The respondent No. 4 on being allowed to hold functional charge of Executive Engineer (Civil) on temporary basis was posted as Executive Engineer (Head Quarter) in the office of the Superintending Engineer, PHE & WS Circle, Yachuli, vide order dated 14.12.2015. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 02.05.2016, the respondent No. 4 was transferred from Yachuli to Daporijo and in the place of respondent No. 4, the petitioner therein was transferred to Yachuli. The learned Single Judge of this Court held that the respondent No. 4, whose substantive post was an Assistant Engineer allowed to hold the additional charge of Executive Engineer on functional basis and posted in the Office of Superintending Engineer, PHE & WS Circle, Yachuli, could not have replaced the writ petitioner, who is a regular Executive Engineer. In paragraphs No. 16, 17, 19, 21 & 22 of the judgment, the learned Single Judge has held as follows "16. Though issue raised, at the first instance, appears to be short and simple, on a careful analysis of the rival submissions made at the Bar as well as the materials on record would reveal that an ancilliary issue of considerable significance has got inter-twined with the transfer order of the petitioner which calls for a deeper scrutiny of the Court. 17. No doubt transfer and posting of Government servant is within the domain of the administration. Courts are ordinarily reluctant to interfere in matters of transfer and posting save and except, in cases where there is breach of statutory provision or where mala fide exercise of power is demonstrated. 17. No doubt transfer and posting of Government servant is within the domain of the administration. Courts are ordinarily reluctant to interfere in matters of transfer and posting save and except, in cases where there is breach of statutory provision or where mala fide exercise of power is demonstrated. Court may also examine a challenge to an order of transfer on the ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also true that a Government servant cannot insist that he be posted in a particular station. It is for the administration to decide where to post whom. Having said that, it is also to be noted that when there is a case of inter-se transfer, the transfer is to be carried out within the members of the same cadre. Admittedly, in this case, petitioner belongs to the cadre of Executive Engineer in the PHE & WS Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. On the other hand, respondent No. 4 belongs to the cadre of Assistant Engineer in the same Department. As per service hierarchy, post of Assistant Engineer is subordinate to the post of Executive Engineer. By an order dated 14.12.2015, respondent No. 4 and 14 others, who are all in the cadre of Assistant Engineer, were allowed to hold charge of Executive Engineer on temporary basis in the scale of pay of Assistant Engineer without any extra remuneration. It was mentioned that such functional charge of Executive Engineer was a purely stop gap arrangement and would automatically be terminated as and when regular Executive Engineer is posted, further clarifying that holding of additional charge of Executive Engineer would not confer upon those 15 Assistant Engineers any right to claim regular promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineer. On that basis, respondent No. 4 was posted in the office of the Superintending Engineer, PWE & WS Department, Yachuli whereafter, vide the impugned order, he was transferred to Daporijo. 19. A closer scrutiny of the impugned order would go to show that respondent No. 4 has been described or referred to as Executive Engineer and as Executive Engineer, he has been asked to take over charge from the petitioner at Daporijo. The fact of the matter is respondent No. 4 is not an Executive Engineer. His substantive post is Assistant Engineer. By an order dated 14.12.2015, he was only allowed to hold additional charge of Executive Engineer. The fact of the matter is respondent No. 4 is not an Executive Engineer. His substantive post is Assistant Engineer. By an order dated 14.12.2015, he was only allowed to hold additional charge of Executive Engineer. The concept of allowing additional charge would presuppose holding of substantive post to enable taking over of additional charge. As noticed above, substantive post of respondent No. 4 is Assistant Engineer and he could have been transferred only to a substantive post of Assistant Engineer, in this case at Daporijo. Only after taking over charge in his substantive post of Assistant Engineer would the respondent No. 4 be able to hold the additional charge of Executive Engineer, if the exigencies of service so requires, an Assistant Engineer could not have been and cannot be transferred to the post of Executive Engineer. Moreover, the sheet anchor of respondent No. 4 i.e., order dated 14.12.2015 makes it abundantly clear that he would continue to draw the salary of Assistant Engineer. It is not understood as to how respondent No. 4 by holding the office of Executive Engineer at Daporijo would draw salary of Assistant Engineer. Such arrangement, as noticed by the Govt. OM dated 10.02.2016, may reflect gross administrative indiscipline. As already noticed above, transfer of the petitioner has got inter-twined with the transfer of respondent No. 4 as Executive Engineer; since it is a transfer inter-se and cannot be adjudicated de hors transfer of respondent No. 4. 21. In view of the discussions made above, Court is of the considered opinion that impugned order dated 02.05.2016 is vitiated by a fundamental error and, therefore, cannot be sustained. Though other issues have been raised, such as, interference by political functionaries, having regard to the finding arrived at as above, it may not be necessary to delve into the other aspects of the matter. 22. Accordingly and in the light of the above, impugned order dated 02.05.2016 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside and quashed." 57. The learned Single Judge in the case, referred to hereinabove, have clearly held that there cannot be an inter-se transfer between the officer holding a substantive post of Assistant Engineer, who have been allowed to hold additional functional charge of Executive Engineer, and the officer holding the substantive post of Executive Engineer. 58. The learned Single Judge in the case, referred to hereinabove, have clearly held that there cannot be an inter-se transfer between the officer holding a substantive post of Assistant Engineer, who have been allowed to hold additional functional charge of Executive Engineer, and the officer holding the substantive post of Executive Engineer. 58. It may be mentioned herein that the respondent No. 4 therein had preferred a Writ Appeal, being WA No. 360/2016, at Principal Seat of Gauhati High Court against the judgment and order dated 28.09.2016, passed in WP(C) No. 257(AP)2016. The Hon'ble Division Bench in WA No. 360/2016 had initially stayed the order dated 28.09.2016, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 257(AP)2016. The WA No. 360/2016, however, on being transferred from the Principal Seat of Gauhati High Court to Itanagar Bench of Gauhati High Court, was renumbered as WA No. 11(AP)2017 and the said Writ Appeal was dismissed by an order dated 16.07.2018 on being rendered infructuous. Accordingly, the law laid down by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 257(AP)2016, vide judgment and order dated 28.09.2016, has not been disturbed. 59. Hence, the ratio laid down by the learned Single Judge by the judgment and order dated 28.09.2016 in WP(C) No. 257(AP)2016, that there cannot be an inter-se transfer between the functional Executive Engineer and the substantive Executive Engineer, could appropriately be applied to the facts and circumstances obtaining in the present litigation. As have been noted above, the respondent No. 2, whose substantive post is an Executive Engineer having been temporarily allowed to look after the charge of Superintending Engineer (SSW) in his own scale of pay of Executive Engineer in the Office of Chief Engineer, RWD, Eastern Zone, in the exigencies of works in the Department, could not have been transferred and posted at Pasighat as a Superintending Engineer in Rural Works Circle, Pasighat to replace the writ petitioner, who is a Superintending Engineer though strictly speaking on officiating basis but enjoying the pay and other allowances attached to the post of Superintending Engineer and vested with the position and status of the Superintending Engineer in the Department on being promoted as such in the year 2011 in a reserved vacancy as well as found his place at Sl. No. 5 in the final inter-se seniority list notified on 01.11.2019, issued by the Secretary, RWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, vide No. SRWD.20/2005/405. No. 5 in the final inter-se seniority list notified on 01.11.2019, issued by the Secretary, RWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, vide No. SRWD.20/2005/405. As was held in WP(C) No. 257(AP)/2016, in the instant case also, the sheet anchor of respondent No. 2, i.e., the order dated 07.06.2018, issued on 08.06.2018 by the Secretary (RWD), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, vide Memo No. SRWD-03/2003 (Pt.)/620, makes it abundantly clear that he would continue to draw the salary of Executive Engineer. It is not understood as to how the respondent No. 2 by holding the post of Superintending Engineer at Rural Works Circle, Pasighat would draw the salary of Executive Engineer. Such arrangement may reflect gross administrative indiscipline. The order dated 07.06.2011, by which the respondent No. 2 was allowed to look after the charge of Superintending Engineer (SSW) in the Office of the Chief Engineer, RWD, Eastern Zone, in his own scale of pay of Executive Engineer on a stop gap arrangement due to exigencies of works in the Department, must be given a restricted interpretation. Such an ad hoc and stop gap arrangement may be permissible in the administrative exigencies of service in the Department but such ad hoc or stop gap arrangement must be restricted within the Office assigned in the order and cannot be allowed to expand/spread over to the other establishments/offices of the Department to disturb the positions of Superintending Engineers placed at other Administrative Circles across the State. If such a course is permitted, Executive Engineers, allowed to function as Superintending Engineer in their own scale of pay of Executive Engineer, may replace any of the 'regular' Superintending Engineers also, which, in the considered view of this Court, would neither be in the administrative interest of the department nor in the interest of the public. If at all the competent authority is of the view that the administrative exigencies requires replacement of the writ petitioner, there is no dearth of Superintending Engineers as has been noticed from the final inter-se seniority list of the Superintending Engineers in the Department as notified by notification dated 01.11.2019, issued by the Secretary, RWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, vide No. SRWD.20/2005/405. 60. Though the learned Senior Additional Advocate General has not referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh & Ors. Vs. 60. Though the learned Senior Additional Advocate General has not referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2009) 15 SCC 178 , yet, this Court feels that the said decision be referred to because of the fact that when this matter was argued by the learned Standing Counsel for the Rural Works Department, Mr. G. Tarak, before the counter-affidavit of the Department was filed, he had relied on the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to contend that the High Court cannot enter into the arena of deciding as to who is a competent person to be posted at a particular place. Confronted with the question from the Court as to how the functional Superintending Engineer, drawing his own pay of Executive Engineer, could replace the petitioner, who have been vested with the position and status of the Superintending Engineer, Mr. Tarak, learned Standing Counsel for the Rural Works Department, had argued that it would be an arena where the competency of the petitioner and the respondent are put to a comparative assessment by this Court, which is not permitted in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh (supra). 61. The facts of the case of Rajendra Singh (supra) may be noticed briefly. In that case, both the writ petitioner and the respondent No. 5 were in the Revenue Service in the State of Uttar Pradesh and both of them were Sub-Registrars. By an Officer Order dated 31.07.2007, the writ petitioner, working as Sub-Registrar, Ghaziabad was transferred to Hapur II while respondent No. 5, working as Sub-Registrar, Hapur II was transferred to Ghaziabad IV. While challenging the transfer order dated 31.07.2007, the writ petitioner had, amongst other, set up a case that respondent No. 5, who has been transferred in his place as Sub-Registrar, Ghaziabad IV, did not have good service record; that there was vigilance enquiry pending against respondent No. 5 on charges of corruption and that his service record bears adverse entry in the year 2005. That contention of the writ petitioner against the respondent No. 5 had found favour with the High Court and the High Court had allowed the writ petition interfering with the transfer of respondent No. 5 to Ghaziabad IV. That contention of the writ petitioner against the respondent No. 5 had found favour with the High Court and the High Court had allowed the writ petition interfering with the transfer of respondent No. 5 to Ghaziabad IV. It was in that context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the High Court seriously erred in deciding as to whether respondent No. 5 was a competent person to be posted at Ghaziabad IV as Sub-Registrar. The exercise undertaken by the High Court did not fall within its domain and was rather uncalled for. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the High Court entered into an arena which did not belong to it and thereby committed serious error of law. 62. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh (supra) that it is not within the domain of the High Court to enter into the relative inter-se merit, conduct and integrity of the employees which are within the exclusive domain of the employer. In the instant case, like in WP(C) No. 257(AP)2016, the relative merit, capability, conduct and integrity of the petitioner vis- -vis the respondent No. 2, have not at all been examined by this Court. What has been examined here is the position and status the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 occupies in the department to find out the correctness of inter-se transfer made. On examination of the position and status of the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 in the Department; it is found that the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 are not similarly placed Officers in the Department. The petitioner enjoys the position and status including pay and allowances attached to the Superintending Engineer whereas the respondent No. 2 have only been allowed to look after the work of Superintending Engineer (SSW) in the Office of the Chief Engineer, RWD, Eastern Zone on purely temporary basis as a stop gap arrangement in the administrative exigency of the Department in his own scale of pay of Executive Engineer, which is the substantive post of the respondent No. 2. 63. 63. For the reasons and discussions made hereinabove, I am in respectful agreement with the law laid down by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 257(AP)/2016, and, therefore, of the considered view that the petitioner and the respondent No. 2, being not similarly placed Officers in the Department, there cannot be an inter-se transfer between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 and the impugned order, dated 29.06.2020, cannot be legally sustained. 64. Accordingly, the impugned transfer order dated 29.06.2020, issued by the Secretary (RWD), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, vide Memo. No. SRWD-44/2002/618, is vitiated by a fundamental error and the same is hereby set aside and quashed. 65. The writ petition stands allowed and disposed in terms above.