Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1717 (GAU)

N. Mongyung Phom v. State of Nagaland

2024-12-05

MANISH CHOUDHURY, VIJAY BISHNOI

body2024
JUDGMENT : [Manish Choudhury, J.] This intra-court appeal is preferred taking exception to a Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge in a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 282 of 2022 which the writ appellant had preferred as the writ petitioner. In the writ petition, assail was made to a part of an Order bearing no. HTE/HE/TRANSFER/13-8/2022/941 dated 09.11.2022 whereby the writ appellant-writ petitioner had been transferred to Sao Chang College, Tuensang and the respondent no. 4 was retained at Dimapur Government College. By the Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2024, the writ petition came to be dismissed. 2. Both the writ appellant-writ petitioner [‘the appellant’, for short] and the respondent no. 4, who was also impleaded as party-respondent no. 4 in the writ petition [‘the respondent no. 4, for short] are serving as Assistant Professors in English in Government Colleges under the Higher and Technical Education Department, Government of Nagaland. The appellant came to be appointed as a Lecturer in English vide a Notification dated 06.08.2009 issued by the Department of Higher and Technical Education, Government of Nagaland, after her name was recommended by the Nagaland Public Service Commission. As per the Notification dated 06.08.2009, the initial posting of the petitioner was at Wangkhao Government College, Mon. On being so appointed, the petitioner joined as a Lecturer [later on, re-designated as Assistant Professor] in English at Wangkhao Government College at Mon. The appellant and the respondent no. 4 are members of the Nagaland Higher Education Service and their conditions of service are regulated by the Nagaland Higher Education Service Rules. 3. The Higher and Technical Education Department, Government of Nagaland issued an Order bearing no. HTE/HE/TRANSFER/13-8/2022 on 10.10.2022 whereby it effected transfer/posting of twenty-eight nos. of Associate Professors/Assistant Professors serving in different Colleges under the Higher Education Department, Government of Nagaland. By the Order dated 10.10.2022, the appellant was transferred from Wangkhao Government College at Mon to Dimapur Government College. By the Order dated 10.10.2022, the respondent no. 4 who is also an Assistant Professor in English, was transferred from Dimapur Government College to Wangkhao Government College, Mon. The Associate Professors/Assistant Professors whose names figured in the Order dated 10.10.2022 were informed that handing over/taking over should be completed within ten days from the date of issuance of the Order. 4. 4 who is also an Assistant Professor in English, was transferred from Dimapur Government College to Wangkhao Government College, Mon. The Associate Professors/Assistant Professors whose names figured in the Order dated 10.10.2022 were informed that handing over/taking over should be completed within ten days from the date of issuance of the Order. 4. After about a month from the Order dated 10.10.2022, the Higher and Technical Education Department, Government of Nagaland issued another Order bearing no. HTE/HE/TRANSFER/13-8/2022/941 dated 09.11.2022 in continuation of its earlier Order dated 10.10.2022. In the Order dated 09.11.2022, names of nine nos. of Associate Professors/Assistant Professors figured including the names of the appellant and the respondent no. 4. In the Order dated 09.11.2022, it was mentioned that the services of the respondent no. 4 would be retained at Dimapur Government College. On the other hand, the order of transfer of the appellant who was earlier transferred to Dimapur Government College, was modified by transferring the appellant to Sao Chang College, Tuensang. The Associate Professors/Assistant Professors were informed that handing over/taking over should be completed within a period of ten days from the date of issuance of the Order. 5. When a Representation preferred by the appellant on 14.11.2022 seeking revocation of her transfer to Sao Chang College, Tuensang and for giving effect to her original transfer order to Dimapur Government College did not revoke any response, the appellant as the writ petitioner preferred the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 282 of 2022. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties and upon perusal of the materials brought on record, dismissed the writ petition by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2024 finding no merit in the contentions advanced by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2024, the instant intra-court appeal has been preferred. 6. We have heard Mr. Wati Jamir, learned counsel for the appellant; Mr. V. Zhimomi, learned Government Advocate, Nagaland for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3; and Mr. Moa Jamir, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4. 7. Mr. Wati Jamir, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that in the writ petition, it was not the case of the appellant-writ petitioner that there was either violation of any statutory rule or there was malafide action behind the impugned Order dated 09.11.2022. Moa Jamir, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4. 7. Mr. Wati Jamir, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that in the writ petition, it was not the case of the appellant-writ petitioner that there was either violation of any statutory rule or there was malafide action behind the impugned Order dated 09.11.2022. But, the learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate the ground urged on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner that there was no reason assigned in the impugned Order dated 09.11.2022 in effecting the transfer of the appellant-writ petitioner to Sao Chang College, Tuensang after having her transfered earlier to Dimapur Government College on 10.10.2022. It has been contended, as also contended earlier before the learned Single Judge, that if the transfer order is modified without assigning any reason, it ceases to be in public interest. Mr. Jamir has contended that if after an order of transfer, it is modified subsequently, then such modification order needs to contain reasons and in absence of reasons, such modification of transfer becomes arbitrary. He has further contended that the order of modification, made vide the impugned Order dated 09.11.2022, was at the behest of the respondent no. 4 and as the modification was made by the State respondents at the behest of the respondent no. 4, the impugned Order dated 09.11.2022 is liable to be set aside and the original order of transfer dated 10.10.2022 needs to be restored, by interfering with the Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2024. In order to buttress his above submissions, Mr. Jamir has referred to the decisions in : [i] Roukuolhoulie Angami vs. State of Nagaland and another, 1997 [1] GLT 140; [ii] Dubom Bagra vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and others, 2013 [5] GLT 487; and [iii] Mrinal Chandra Das vs. State Bank of India and others, 2021 [5] GLT 652. 8. Mr. Zhimomi, learned State Counsel has submitted that for members of the Nagaland Higher Education Service, transfer is a condition of service. Thus, the appellant-writ petitioner is liable to be transferred and posted at different Government Colleges in public interest and in exigencies of service. It can be easily discernible from the Order dated 10.10.2022 that transfers of twenty-eight nos. of Associate Professors/Assistant Professors were made and such transfers were routine transfers. When immediately after the Order dated 10.10.2022, a Representation from the respondent no. It can be easily discernible from the Order dated 10.10.2022 that transfers of twenty-eight nos. of Associate Professors/Assistant Professors were made and such transfers were routine transfers. When immediately after the Order dated 10.10.2022, a Representation from the respondent no. 4 was received through the Principal, Dimapur Government College the same was given due consideration. Finding the cause highlighted in the said Representation as genuine on humanitarian ground the same was considered in the light of the Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018 of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Government of India. As the only child of the respondent no. 4 has been found to be suffering from disability on the basis of medical reports, requiring regular medical attention, it was decided to retain services of the respondent no. 4 at Dimapur Government College. Mr. Zhimomi has contended that the decisions, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. He has further contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly reached the finding that no case has been made out by the petitioner for not complying with the impugned Order dated 09.11.2022 and, therefore, the instant appeal is devoid of any merit. 9. Mr. Moa Jamir, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has submitted that immediately after the Order dated 10.10.2022, the petitioner submitted a Representation for not giving effect to her transfer order because of the medical condition of her only child, aged about three years then. The Principal of Dimapur Government College had forwarded the Representation to the Director of Higher Education, Nagaland vide his Forwarding Letter dated 14.10.2022 along with all the supporting medical documents, with a request to consider the case of the respondent no. 4 on humanitarian ground. The said Representation received consideration at the end of the State respondents and it was thereafter, a conscious decision was arrived at to retain her service at the Dimapur Government College. Mr. Jamir has further contended that there is no illegality on the part of the State respondents to grant exemption to the respondent no. 4 on the basis of the guidelines laid down in the Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018 [supra]. Mr. Jamir has further contended that there is no illegality on the part of the State respondents to grant exemption to the respondent no. 4 on the basis of the guidelines laid down in the Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018 [supra]. The child of the petitioner, who was then aged about three years old, was then and also presently is a patient of Down’s Syndrome and Congenital Heart Defect [Atrial Septal Defect], who needs constant medical supervision and care and the facilities are available in Dimapur. As the appellant was not released from Wangkhao Government College, Mon and did not join Dimapur Government College pursuant to Order dated 10.10.2022, the transfer made vide the impugned Order dated 09.11.2022 is, in essence, her first transfer. Since there was no dislocation of the appellant pursuant to the Order dated 10.10.2022, the contention advanced on the appellant’s behalf regarding repeated transfer does not appear to have any force. Mr. Jamir in support of the case of the respondent no. 4, has referred to the decisions in : [i] Rajendra Roy vs. Union of India and another, [1993] 1 SCC 148; [ii] Union of India and others vs. S.L. Abbas, [1993] 4 SCC 357; [iii] Prabodh Sagar vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, [2000] 5 SCC 630; [iv] National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited vs. Sri Bhagwan and another, [2001] 8 SCC 574; [v] State of U.P. and others vs. Gobardhan Lal, [2004] 11 SCC 402; and [vi] Union of India and others vs. Ashok Kumar and others, [2005] 8 SCC 760. 10. We have duly considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the materials brought on record by the parties through their pleadings, apart from the findings and reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge. 11. It is found that both the appellant and the respondent no. 4 are Assistant Professors in English and both of them are members of the Nagaland Higher Education Service. It is not in dispute that the conditions of service of the members of the Nagaland Higher Education Service are regulated by the provisions of the Nagaland Higher Education Service Rules. The members of the Nagaland Higher Education Service are posted in different Government Colleges under the Higher and Technical Education Department, Government of Nagaland, which are located at various parts of the State. The members of the Nagaland Higher Education Service are posted in different Government Colleges under the Higher and Technical Education Department, Government of Nagaland, which are located at various parts of the State. It is also not in dispute that the members of the Nagaland Higher Education Service are liable to be transferred from one Government College to another Government College during their service tenure, in exigencies of service and in public interest. It is, thus, clear that the post of Assistant Professor is a transferrable post and for members of the Nagaland Higher Education Service, transfer is not only an incident but also a condition of service, which can be made in public interest and for exigencies in service. 12. At the time of issuance of the Order dated 10.10.2022, the appellant was serving as an Assistant Professor in English at Wangkhao Government College, Mon and the respondent no. 4 was serving at Dimapur Government College, Dimapur. It can be noticed from the Order dated 10.10.2022 that by the said Order, the State Government transferred a total of twenty-eight nos. of Associate Professors/Assistant Professors from one Government College to another Government College. The Order dated 10.10.2022, shown to be issued in the interest of public service, read as under in so far as the appellant and the respondent no. 4 were concerned :- ORDER Dated Kohima the 10th Oct, 2022 No.HTE/HE/TRANSFER/13-8/2022 : In the interest of public service, the Governor of Nagaland is pleased to order the Transfer/Posting of the following Associate Professors/Assistant Professors under Higher Education Department. Sl. Name Subject From To Remark 25. Smti. M. Mongyang Phom English Wangkhao Government College, Mon Dimapur Government College Against Smti. Shuiching Konyak transferred 26. Smti. Shuiching Konyak English Dimapur Government College Wangkhao Government College, MonQ Against Smti. M. Mongyang Phom transferred 13. It has emerged from the pleadings in the writ petition that after the Order dated 10.10.2022, the appellant was not released from Wangkhao Government College, Mon by the Principal of the College and as a result, the appellant did not join in her transferred place of posting, Dimapur Government College till the issuance of the impugned Order dated 09.11.2022. It has emerged from the pleadings in the writ petition that after the Order dated 10.10.2022, the appellant was not released from Wangkhao Government College, Mon by the Principal of the College and as a result, the appellant did not join in her transferred place of posting, Dimapur Government College till the issuance of the impugned Order dated 09.11.2022. In the counter affidavit filed by the State respondents through the Joint Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Higher and Technical Education Department, it was averred that a general reshuffle in the Department was initiated by the transfer Order dated 10.10.2022. The initial transfer Order dated 10.10.2022 was modified later on by the Order dated 09.11.2022 in respect of nine Associate Professors/Assistant Professors. 14. It had been further averred on behalf of the State respondents that after the Order dated 10.10.2022, the Principal, Dimapur Government College wrote a Forwarding Letter on 14.10.2022 requesting retention of services of the respondent no. 4 in Dimapur Government College on humanitarian ground. By the Forwarding Letter dated 14.10.2022, the Principal, Dimapur Government College forwarded a Representation received from the respondent no. 4 along with the supporting documents. The case projected by the State respondents is that on receipt of the Forwarding Letter of the Principal, Dimapur Government College and the Representation of the respondent no. 4, the authorities examined the medical reports in respect of her child and the cause was found to be genuine as the child of the respondent no. 4, then aged about three years, is a patient of Down’s Syndrome and Congenital Heart Defect [Atrial Septal Defect], who needs constant medical supervision and care and such medical facilities are available only in Dimapur. The State respondents stated to have considered the request of the respondent no. 4 and retained her service on humanitarian ground by taking into consideration the Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018 which is on the subject : ‘Exemption from the routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer’. A copy of the Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018 was also annexed to the counter affidavit along with the medical reports of the child of the respondent no. 4. 15. The impugned transfer order was issued thereafter, on 09.11.2022. The relevant excerpts of the Order dated 09.11.2022 relating to the appellant and the respondent no. A copy of the Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018 was also annexed to the counter affidavit along with the medical reports of the child of the respondent no. 4. 15. The impugned transfer order was issued thereafter, on 09.11.2022. The relevant excerpts of the Order dated 09.11.2022 relating to the appellant and the respondent no. 4 are as under :- ORDER Decided on : 09 Nov, 2022 No.HTE/HE/TRANSFER/13-8/2022/941 : In continuation to this Department’s Order of even number dated 10.10.2022 and in the interest of public service, the Governor of Nagaland is pleased to order the transfer of the following Associate Professor/Assistant Professor under Higher Education Department. Sl. Name Subject From To Remark 4. Smti. Shuiching Konyak English Dimapur Government College Wangkhao Government College, Mon [designate] Retained at Dimapur Government College 5. Smti. M. Mongyang Phom English Wangkhao Government College, Mon Dimapur Government College [designate] Transferred to Sao Chang College, Tuensang against Smti. Limayangla, transferred to Kohima College 16. It has been expounded in Gobardhan Lal [supra] that transfer of a Government 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 Government employee concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular Government employee to any place in public interest and if 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. An 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 shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision. It has been observed further in Gobardhan Lal [supra] that a challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the courts or tribunals as if they are appellate authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. A caveat has been made to the effect that the courts or the tribunals cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent authorities of the State. 17. It has been earlier held in S.L. Abbas [supra] that an order of transfer is an incident of Government service. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly, if an employee makes any representation with respect to his/her transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of service. In National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. [supra], it has been observed that a Government employee does not have any legal right to be posted at any particular place since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferrable post from one place to the 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 of power or stated to be in violation of the statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they are the appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. 18. 18. It is settled that a court does not examine an order of transfer as if it is an appellate authority. Transfer of a Government employee is not only an incident of service but also an essential condition of service. An order of transfer is not ordinarily to be interfered with by a court, unless the order of transfer is found to be in violation of any statutory prescription contained in an Act or the rules or an outcome of mala fide exercise of power or passed by an authority not competent to pass such an order. The learned counsel for the appellant has already submitted that the impugned Order dated 09.11.2022 has not been assailed on any of the afore-mentioned grounds. As such, there appears to be no necessity to further dilate on the said aspects. 19. Once an order of transfer is made, there is an opportunity for a Government employee to make a representation with respect to his/her transfer and in the event such a representation is submitted, the appropriate authority has a corresponding obligation to consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. It cannot be denied that an order of transfer results in dislocation of the family of the concerned employee and in certain cases, it has a tendency to cause hardship and create difficulties. It has been highlighted in Rajendra Roy [supra] that merely due to difficulties and dislocation, an order of transfer is not liable to be struck down. In a transferrable post an order of transfer is a normal consequence and personal difficulties are matters of consideration of the competent authority in the Government. 20. When the respondent no. 4 was transferred from Dimapur Government College to Wangkhao Government College, Mon vice the appellant, the respondent no. 4 submitted a Representation before the Government through proper channel, as mentioned above. The said Representation received consideration at the end of the competent authority qua the guidelines laid down in the Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018 of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Government of India on the subject : ‘Exemption from the routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer’. 4 submitted a Representation before the Government through proper channel, as mentioned above. The said Representation received consideration at the end of the competent authority qua the guidelines laid down in the Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018 of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Government of India on the subject : ‘Exemption from the routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer’. The said Office Memorandum was issued after considering that transfer of a Government employee who serves as the main care-giver of persons with disabilities, would have a bearing on the systematic rehabilitation of persons with disabilities and for giving consideration to a prayer for exemption to such employee from routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer, subject to administrative constraints. It is laid down therein that a Government employee who is a care-giver of dependent daughter/son/parents/spouse/brother/sister with Specified and Benchmark Disability, as defined under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, may exempted from the routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer, subject to the administrative constraints. 21. It has been the stand of the State respondents that on receipt of the Representation from the respondent no. 4 the same was given due consideration in the light of the guidelines laid down in the Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018. After examining the medical reports in respect of the child of the respondent no. 4, aged about three years, it was found that the child is a patient of Down’s Syndrome and Congenital Heart Defect [Atrial Septal Defect] and the child needs constant medical supervision and care and the facilities are available only in Dimapur. It has been, thus, projected that a conscious decision was taken thereafter, to retain the respondent no. 4 in Dimapur Government College. Matters of hardships, difficulties, etc. arising out of an order of transfer are for consideration of the competent authority in the Government/Department. In the case in hand, the Representation of the respondent no. 4 received consideration and thereafter, a decision was taken to retain the respondent no. 4 in Dimapur Government College itself. 22. As a fall-out of the decision taken on the Representation of the respondent no. 4 to retain the respondent no. 4 in Dimapur Government College, the necessity arose to modify the Order dated 10.10.2022. 4 received consideration and thereafter, a decision was taken to retain the respondent no. 4 in Dimapur Government College itself. 22. As a fall-out of the decision taken on the Representation of the respondent no. 4 to retain the respondent no. 4 in Dimapur Government College, the necessity arose to modify the Order dated 10.10.2022. It is noticed that due to transfer of the Assistant Professor in English from Sao Chang College, Tuensang to Kohima College by the Order dated 10.10.2022, a vacancy in the post of Assistant Professor in English had resulted in Sao Chang College, Tuensang. It does not lie on the part of the appellant to claim that she should be posted in any particular Government College or at a particular place. It is in the domain of the Administrative Department to decide which employee is to be posted where. In respect of Higher Education Institutions like Government Colleges, a faculty position cannot be left unfilled as any vacancy left unfilled would be at an enormous cost of public education. 23. The only ground urged on behalf of the appellant is that the original transfer order dated 10.10.2022 was arbitrarily modified by the subsequent impugned Order dated 09.11.2022 without assigning any reason. The main plank for such submission is that any modification of an earlier transfer order must be supported by reasons assigned in the order itself. Such submission is made on the basis of the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant. In order to test such argument, reference to the decisions relied on by the appellant appears necessary. 24. In Dubom Bagra [supra], the writ petitioner, by an Order dated 05.04.2013, was transferred from a place called Daporijo to Pasighat as DMO under the Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The respondent no. 3 therein, who was the In-Charge, DMO at Pasighat, was directed to hand over charges to the regular DMO viz. the petitioner. After being released from his earlier place of posting, Daporijo the petitioner reported for joining to the Deputy Commissioner on 11.04.2013 by submitting a joining report. But, the respondent no. 3 did not hand over charge of the Office of the DMO till 22.04.2013 on the strength of an Order dated 11.04.2013 passed by the appropriate authority allowing retention of the respondent no. 3 at Pasighat. But, the respondent no. 3 did not hand over charge of the Office of the DMO till 22.04.2013 on the strength of an Order dated 11.04.2013 passed by the appropriate authority allowing retention of the respondent no. 3 at Pasighat. Finding that it was on the basis of an unofficial note prepared by three political representatives, who were not connected with the Health & Family Welfare Department, the Court interfered with the impugned Order dated 11.04.2013 holding that the Government fall in error in modifying the transfer order dated 05.04.2013 after merely a week and at the asking of extraneous authority without there being any nexus to public interest. The Court proceeded to hold that as the impugned modification order was passed at the mere asking of some extraneous authority, it was not sustainable and it could not be said that it was issued in public interest. 24.1. In Roukuolhoulie Angami [supra], three transfer orders were passed in respect of the third respondent therein within a span of about four months without assigning any reason. The third respondent who was transferred from Dimapur by the first order of transfer, was kept at Dimapur by the second order of transfer by keeping the first order of transfer in abeyance. By the third order of transfer which was passed in supersession of the second order of transfer, the third respondent was kept in Dimapur again. It was in such backdrop, the Court had observed that a subsequent order cancelling or modifying an earlier order of transfer must be supported with reasons, because transfer of officers are always made in public interest and after elaborate exercise as to who should be transferred where in the exigency of administration. It was observed that while processing the transfer order, various factors are taken into consideration. One of such factors is the duration of the stationing of one officer in a particular station for a long time. It was observed that if an officer is posted in a particular station for a long time, he acquires a considerable knowledge about the administration of the area and at the same time, he also establishes vested interest in the area because of his long association. It was observed that if an officer is posted in a particular station for a long time, he acquires a considerable knowledge about the administration of the area and at the same time, he also establishes vested interest in the area because of his long association. Observing that to avoid such eventualities, timely posting would be necessary, the Court in Roukuolhoulie Angami [supra] had also gone on to observe that if a transfer order made in public interest would be allowed to be taken away by another cryptic order modifying/cancelling the original transfer order without assigning any reason it ceases to be in public interest and such modification/cancellation would be held to have been passed at the whims and caprice of the authorities exercising the power. 24.2. The petitioner in Mrinal Chandra Das [supra], a Bank employee, was made to face four transfer orders during the period from 28.05.2020 to 22.09.2020. In his Representation, the petitioner highlighted about the ill health and disability of his mother. Though in the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent Bank, certain explanations were given, the learned Single Judge did not accept the same in the absence of such justification in the impugned order of transfer. The petitioner therein relied upon the policy of the Bank regarding transfer, circulated vide a Circular dated 07.02.2019, wherein an employee was to be given certain concession in matters of routine transfer for disability suffered by their dependents. The Court was not satisfied with the justification provided by the respondent Bank. The Court had also noted that the respondent Bank authorities did not consider the aspect of issue of disability of the mother of the petitioner vis-à-vis the Circular dated 07.02.2019. Due to such fact situation, the Court arrived at a finding that the petitioner was not treated fairly and consequently, the last of the transfer orders, impugned therein, was set aside. 24.3. In all the afore-mentioned decisions, the learned Court took into consideration the settled proposition of law that transfer is an incident of service and an order of transfer is not to be ordinarily interfered with, unless such order of transfer is one in violation of any statutory provision or vitiated by malafide. The findings arrived therein were based on the facts and circumstances obtaining in those particular cases. The findings arrived therein were based on the facts and circumstances obtaining in those particular cases. Upon consideration, we are not persuaded to arrive at a view that any subsequent order passed in modification/cancellation of an earlier order of transfer must contain reasons in the order itself, even after it is shown to be passed in public interest and is discernible from the fact situation as to why the modification/cancellation has to be made. The fact situation obtaining in Mrinal Chandra Das [supra], are more in favour of the respondent no. 4 herein, than of any assistance to the case of the appellant. A case is an authority only for what it actually decides and not for what may logically follow from it. 25. The decision in Ashok Kumar [supra] is in respect of an order of removal of an officer in the Border Security Force from service wherein a challenge was made on grounds of mala fide action and passing of the order of removal without independent application of mind. The appellant in Prabodh Sagar [supra] assailed his compulsory retirement inter-alia on the ground of mala fides. As the appellant herein has not premised his case on mala fide action on the part of the State respondents, the afore-mentioned two decisions are not required to be discussed in this order. 26. In the case in hand, it has already been found from the discussion made above that the competent authority after considering the Representation submitted by the respondent no. 4 after the original transfer order dated 10.10.2022, arrived at a conscious decision to retain the service of the respondent no. 4 in Dimapur Government College itself on humanitarian ground and the case of the respondent no. 4 was considered in the light of the guidelines laid down in the Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018. It was only after taking such a decision the impugned Order dated 09.11.2022 came to be issued. Thus, it cannot be said that the impugned Order dated 09.11.2022 came to be passed at the behest of the respondent no. 4. The reasons to arrive at the decision to retain the service of the respondent no. 4 have been stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State respondents. The said decision taken on the Representation became the foundation for issuance of the impugned Order dated 09.11.2022. 4. The reasons to arrive at the decision to retain the service of the respondent no. 4 have been stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State respondents. The said decision taken on the Representation became the foundation for issuance of the impugned Order dated 09.11.2022. As a result, there arose necessity to modify the original transfer order in respect of the appellant. With the appellant already having work at Wangkhao Government College at Mon for about long thirteen years, the Department transferred the appellant to Sao Chang College, Tuensang where a vacancy was available. As a Government employee holding a transferrable post, is liable to be transferred to any place in public interest and in efficiency of administration, we are not persuaded to reach a view that the transfer of the appellant from Wangkhao Government College at Mon wherein she served for about thirteen years, to Sao Chang College at Tuensang is not in public interest and not for efficiency administration. 27. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons assigned therein, we are of the considered view that the appellant has not been able to make out a case to interfere with the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the instant intra-court appeal is found to be devoid of any merits. As a result, the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to cost.