JUDGMENT : Kardak Ete, J. Heard Mr. P. D. Nair, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. R. Riba, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. 2. This Intra-Court Appeal is directed against the order dated 06.05.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge, in WP(C) No. 544(AP)2024, by which, the writ petition challenging the order of transfer dated 27.10.2024, issued on 29.10.2024, by the Commissioner (Urban Affairs) transferring the appellant from Boleng, UD Division as Executive Engineer to the Office of the Chief Engineer, Urban Development & Housing (UD&H) Department at Itanagar as Surveyor of Works-I and in his place, the respondent No. 3, has been transferred, the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with and dismissed the writ petition. 3. The case in brief is that the appellant is an Executive Engineer in Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, who is serving at Boleng UD Division of the Department. The appellant was posted at Boleng, vide order, dated 12.10.2020, since then, he is serving at Boleng UD Division. Vide an order, dated 27.10.2024, issued on 29.10.2024, the Commissioner (Urban Affairs), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, transferred the appellant from Boleng UD Division and posted him as Surveyor of Works-I in the Office of the Chief Engineer (UD&H) at Itanagar and the respondent No. 3, namely, Er. Tadar Relum, who is working as an In-charge Surveyor of Works-I in the Office of the Chief Engineer (UD&H), Itanagar, has been posted as an Executive Engineer at Boleng UD Division. 4. Being aggrieved with the transfer from Boleng UD Division to the Office of the Chief Engineer (UD&H), Itanagar, and posting of the respondent No. 3 in his place, the appellant has approached this Court by way of writ petition being WP(C) No. 544(AP)/2024. The learned Single Judge vide impugned order, dated 06.05.2025, disposed of the writ petition by holding that impugned order of transfer, dated 27.10.2024, transferring the petitioner from Boleng UD Division to the Office of the Chief Engineer (UD&H), Itanagar, as Surveyor of Works-I is in the interest of public service. The learned Single Judge vide impugned order, dated 06.05.2025, disposed of the writ petition by holding that impugned order of transfer, dated 27.10.2024, transferring the petitioner from Boleng UD Division to the Office of the Chief Engineer (UD&H), Itanagar, as Surveyor of Works-I is in the interest of public service. The appellant did not allege that the impugned order of transfer has been issued mala fide or to favour the respondent No. 3, but the only ground taken by the appellant is that the respondent No. 3, who is sought to replace him at Boleng UD Division is not an Executive Engineer but an Assistant Engineer. It has held that though the appellant alleged that transfer and posting of the respondent No. 3 to replace him at Boleng UD Division is illegal and arbitrary and only to accommodate the private respondent No. 3, but in that regard the appellant did not place any specific material before the Court. It has further held that the appellant did not state before the Court since when he is serving at Boleng UD Division rather remained silent with regard to the order of his transfer on his own request, dated 12.10.2020, transferring him at Boleng UD Division. Accordingly, declined to interfere with the order of transfer dated 27.10.2024 and dismissed the writ petition. 5. Assailing the order dated 06.05.2025, Mr. P. D. Nair, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the ground which the appellant has taken, particularly that the appellant cannot be replaced by a junior Officer. In other words, the appellant being a regular Executive Engineer and the respondent No. 3, whose substantive post is Assistant Engineer, cannot be transferred in place of the appellant, who is a regular Executive Engineer in the Department. 6. In support of his submissions, Mr. Nair, learned counsel, has placed reliance on the judgment and order in the cases of Niapung Konia vs. The State of Arunachal Pradesh & Others [WP(C) No. 257(AP)2016], Hibu Tama vs. the State of Arunachal Pradesh & Others, reported in (2021) 1 GLR 449 and Mori Riba vs. the State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors. [WP(C) No. 76(AP)/2025] passed by the Single Benches of this Court. 7. Mr. [WP(C) No. 76(AP)/2025] passed by the Single Benches of this Court. 7. Mr. P. D. Nair, learned counsel, submits that in the above judgment and orders, it has been held that there cannot be an inter se transfer between Officers who are not similarly placed Officers in the Department. Since, the appellant is an Executive Engineer in the Department and the respondent No. 3, being an Assistant Engineer, there could not have been inter se transfer between the appellant and the respondent No. 3. He submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate and consider the above cases as no discussion has been made in the impugned order. That apart, as the appellant is on the verge of retirement within one year, he submits that the respondent authorities ought not to have transferred the appellant in violation of the guidelines regulating the transfer and posting in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 8. Mr. Nair, learned counsel, further submits that the learned Single Judge although recorded the orders passed by the Hon’ble Coordinate Benches in the above cases, however, has failed to consider that the respondent No. 3 is in the substantive post of Assistant Engineer and was merely holding the charge of post of Surveyor of Works, thereby, has failed to consider the orders of the Coordinate Benches that there cannot be inter se transfer between Officers who are not similarly placed Officers in the Department. Therefore, the learned Single Judge by not considering this aspect of the matter while passing the impugned order dated 06.05.2025, has taken a view contrary to the law as already settled by other Coordinate Benches. Hence, the impugned order, dated 06.05.2025 is liable to be interfered with and in sequel, the order, dated 27.10.2024 being illegal, arbitrary and without any rational basis may be set aside and quashed. 9. E converso, Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent Nos. Hence, the impugned order, dated 06.05.2025 is liable to be interfered with and in sequel, the order, dated 27.10.2024 being illegal, arbitrary and without any rational basis may be set aside and quashed. 9. E converso, Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, while supporting the impugned judgment and order, dated 06.05.2025, submits that the Urban development and Housing Department has 36 (Thirty-Six) posts of Executive Engineer out of which, only 11 (Eleven) Officers are serving as regular Executive Engineer and 2 (Two) of them are holding the charge of Superintending Engineers and one of them is on deputation to Itanagar Municipal Corporation and the rest of the posts are being allowed on either Officiating, Functional or In-Charge basis due to various litigations pending before this Court with regard to seniority for which the regular promotion could not be made. He submits that the respondent No. 3 is also, otherwise, eligible to be promoted to the post of regular Executive Engineer and in the circumstances, like other Officers she has been allowed to function as In-Charge Surveyor of Works, a post equivalent to Executive Engineer. 10. Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the cases relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, are distinguishable, inasmuch as those cases, pertains to Department of PHE & Water Supply Department, RWD and the Department of Environment and Forest and Climate change and the junior Officers were transferred to a higher post by replacing the regular higher Officers and accordingly, the Hon’ble Single Benches of this Hon’ble Court have held that there cannot be an inter se transfer between the Officers, who are not similarly placed Officers in the Department. He further submits that the appellant has been serving at Boleng UD Division since 2020 on his own request and has completed 4 (Four) years, although normal tenure is 2 (Two) years in a particular posting. Apart from that he has been transferred to Itanagar, which is a Headquarter, considering that the appellant will retire from service within 1 (One) year so that no inconvenience is caused to him in preparation of pension papers as per the norms. 11. Mr. Apart from that he has been transferred to Itanagar, which is a Headquarter, considering that the appellant will retire from service within 1 (One) year so that no inconvenience is caused to him in preparation of pension papers as per the norms. 11. Mr. R. Riba, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, while endorsing the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General, submits that the respondent No. 3 is eligible to be promoted to the post of regular Executive Engineer and having considered her competency, she has been allowed to serve as In-Charge Surveyor of Works in the Office of the Chief Engineer (UD&H), Itanagar, which is an equivalent post of an Executive Engineer. He submits that the appellant has suppressed the fact that he has been continuously serving for 4 (Four) years at Boleng UD Division after the transfer on his own request vide order, dated 12.10.2020, as he has failed to reveal the said material facts. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 12. We have anxiously considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties, and also perused the order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge. 13. Admittedly, the appellant is a regular Executive Engineer in the Department of Urban Development, who has been serving at Boleng UD Division since 12.10.2020 for 4 (Four) years. It is also admitted position that the substantive post of the respondent No. 3 is Assistant Engineer, which is a feeder post of the Executive Engineer and she has been allowed to serve as In-Charge Surveyor of Works, which is an equivalent post of Executive Engineer. 14. The main thrust of argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Single Benches in the cases of Niapung Konia (supra), Hibu Tama (supra) and Mori Riba (supra) have held that there cannot be inter se transfer between Officers who are not similarly placed Officers in the Department. Therefore, since the appellant is a regular Executive Engineer in the Department and admittedly the respondent No. 3 being an Assistant Engineer, the transfer and posting order dated 27.10.2024 is illegal, inasmuch as same is in the teeth of the settled position of law by the learned Single Benches of this Court. 15. Therefore, since the appellant is a regular Executive Engineer in the Department and admittedly the respondent No. 3 being an Assistant Engineer, the transfer and posting order dated 27.10.2024 is illegal, inasmuch as same is in the teeth of the settled position of law by the learned Single Benches of this Court. 15. To appreciate, we deem it apposite to refer to the judgment and orders passed by the learned Single Judges, upon which the learned counsel for the appellant has heavily relied. 16. The case of Niapung Konia (supra) , pertains to transfer of an Executive Engineer and in his place an Assistant Engineer was transferred to hold the charge of Executive Engineer in the PHE & WS Department. Challenge was made by the Executive Engineer. In that context, the Court has held that a closer scrutiny of the impugned order would go to show that respondent No. 4 has been described or referred to as an Executive Engineer and he has been asked to take over charge from the petitioner at Daporijo. The fact of the matter is that the respondent No. 4 is not an Executive Engineer. His substantive post is Assistant Engineer. By the 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 require, 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. 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 dehors transfer of respondent No.4. 17. The case of Hibu Tama (supra) pertains to transfer of a Superintending Engineer in the Rural Works Department, wherein, the regular Superintending Engineer was sought to be replaced by functional Superintending Engineer, whose substantive post was Executive Engineer and having found that the petitioner and the private respondent being not similarly placed Officers in the Department, there cannot be an inter se transfer between the petitioner and the private respondent, and accordingly, the transfer order was held to be legally unsustainable. 18. The case of Mori Riba (supra) , pertains to the transfer of Deputy Conservator of Forest as Divisional Forest Officer and in his place the Assistant Conservator of Forest, which is lower in rank was sought to be retained. The learned Single Bench has made a reference to the judgment of Niapung Konia (supra) and Hibu Tama (supra) , wherein, in similar circumstances the transfer order was found to be illegal and interfered with. 19. Perusal of the above judgments of the learned Single Benches of this Court, shows that the learned Single Benches have held that it is not permissible to make inter se transfer between Officers who are not similarly placed Officers in the Department. Having perused the judgements, we are of the view that it may be correct that normally, it may not be permissible to make inter se transfer between Officers who are not similarly placed Officers in the Department. However, there would not be a complete bar to transfer an Officer serving on In-charge/Officiating or Functional basis in a higher post unless it has caused any prejudice and affect the service conditions of the Officer, who is sought to be transferred to a different place of posting with same rank, status and benefits depending on administrative exigencies. However, there would not be a complete bar to transfer an Officer serving on In-charge/Officiating or Functional basis in a higher post unless it has caused any prejudice and affect the service conditions of the Officer, who is sought to be transferred to a different place of posting with same rank, status and benefits depending on administrative exigencies. It is true that the higher Officer cannot be replaced by a junior Officer, who may not be competent to work in the said post, however, in the given circumstances, if the Officer is competent, having the knowledge and experience with his/her considerable length of service, in our view, there would not be a bar on such transfer and posting. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the junior Officer, who has been allowed to serve as In-Charge in the higher post for a considerable time cannot be allowed to serve as In-Charge of that post considering the service experience of the junior Officer which may have gained in the course of service. 20. Record reveals that out of 36 (Thirty-Six) posts of Executive Engineer, only 11 (eleven) posts are being held by the regular Executive Engineer and rest are being allowed to be held by either Officiating, Functional or In-charge basis including the respondent No. 3. It appears that the respondent No. 3 has been allowed to serve as In-Charge Surveyor of Works-I in the Department, which is an equivalent post of Executive Engineer since 22.03.2023. 21. It appears that the respondent No. 3 has been allowed to serve as In-Charge Surveyor of Works-I in the Department, which is an equivalent post of Executive Engineer since 22.03.2023. 21. In the normal circumstances, it may not be permissible to make a inter se transfer between Officers who are not similarly placed Officers in the Department, but in the attending facts and circumstances of the present case, we find no reason why the appellant cannot be transferred from Boleng UD Division to an equivalent post of Surveyor of Works in the Office of the Chief Engineer at Itanagar, after having been allowed to serve for 4 (Four) years, whereas, the normal tenure is of 2 (Two) years and the private respondent No. 3, who is one of the many Officers who has been allowed to serve as In-Charge of an equivalent post of Executive Engineer for a considerable period of time cannot be transferred to a post of an Executive Engineer, in view of the fact that in the Department, out of 36 (Thirty-Six) posts of Executive Engineers, only 11 (Eleven) Officers are serving on regular basis and the rest are either allowed to serve as Officiating, Functional or In-charge basis, including the private respondent No. 3 due to certain genuine reasons. 22. We may refer to some of the settled principle of law on judicial review in the matters of transfer of Government employees by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In in the case of N.K. Singh vs. Union of India, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 98, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the scope of judicial review in matters of transfer of a government servant to an equivalent post without any adverse consequence on the service or career prospect is very limited being only grounds of mala fide and violation of any specific provision of law. 23. In the case of Rajendra Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2009) 15 SCC 178 , the Hon’ble supreme Court has held which is reproduced herein under:- “..8. A government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. A government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. 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. No Government can function if the government servant insists that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. 9. The courts are always reluctant in interfering with the transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of some statutory provisions or suffers from mala fides. In Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar² this Court held: "4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. If the courts continue to interfere with day- to-day transfer orders issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders." 24. In the present case, the appellant has failed to show any adverse consequence on his service or career prospect or any prejudice nor any mala fide is alleged or violation of any statutory rules . The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders." 24. In the present case, the appellant has failed to show any adverse consequence on his service or career prospect or any prejudice nor any mala fide is alleged or violation of any statutory rules . The appellant, admittedly , has been transferred after completion of 4 (four) years at Boleng UD Division of the Department to an equivalent post of Surveyor of Works before one year of his retirement considering that the appellant may not face any inconvenience in preparation of pension papers in consonance with the relevant guidelines and norms of the Government. Thus, we find no illegality or arbitrariness in the transfer order dated 27.10.2024. 25. Having considered above, although the learned Single Judge appears to have not specifically discussed the cases referred to above by the learned Single Benches, which have held that there cannot be inter se transfer between Officers, who are not similarly placed Officers in the Department, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order, dated 06.05.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)No. 544/2024, in view of the facts and circumstances in the case and reasons as discussed by us (supra). 26. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the impugned order, dated 06.05.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)No. 544/2024. Thus, the impugned order warrants no interference. Consequently, this Intra-Court Appeal fails and stands dismissed, accordingly.