JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. D. Mozumder, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Biswakarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Tagum, learned standing counsel for the Education Department, representing respondent no.1 to 4, Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. R.B. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent no.5, Mr. K. Loya, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 and Mr. D. Soki, learned counsel for respondent no.7. 2. It was jointly submitted at the Bar that the matter can be heard and disposed of at the “admission” stage as no more pleadings are required to be exchanged. Accordingly, on the joint prayer made by learned senior counsel and counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard. 3. The learned senior counsel and counsel for the parties are ad idem that as per the service rules in force in the State, the Principal of a Govt. Secondary School, Deputy Director of School Education (DDSE for short) and Deputy Director of Elementary Education (DDEE for short) belong to the same cadre and are analogous posts. It is also not disputed that the petitioner, during his service career, has remained outside his home district during last 16 years. 4. The case of the petitioner is that during the last part of the year 2020, the health of the mother of the petitioner had deteriorated and therefore, on 13.01.2021, he had submitted a representation before the Education Minister seeking posting at Aalo to enable him to take care of his mother, which was favourably considered and by order dated 04.05.2021, he was transferred as DDSE, Aalo, West Siang District. Accordingly, he had joined on 10.05.2021 and received charge on 17.05.2021. 5. Thereafter, on 02.11.2021, the MLA of Dirang Assembly Constitution had put up a “U.O.” note requesting transfer of Sri Yidak Angu (respondent no. 5), then posted as Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Yomcha. Consequently, a transfer order dated 21.07.2022 was issued by the Commissioner (Education), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, thereby transferring 4 (four) persons, including the petitioner and respondent no.5. The petitioner was transferred from DDSE, West Siang District, Aalo to the post of DDSE, Office of Director Secondary Education, Itanagar. The respondent no. 5 was transferred from Govt. Higher Secondary School, Yomcha to DDSE, West Siang District, Aalo. The said transfer order was put to challenge by the petitioner before this Court by filing W.P.(C) 264(AP)/2022. The petitioner was transferred from DDSE, West Siang District, Aalo to the post of DDSE, Office of Director Secondary Education, Itanagar. The respondent no. 5 was transferred from Govt. Higher Secondary School, Yomcha to DDSE, West Siang District, Aalo. The said transfer order was put to challenge by the petitioner before this Court by filing W.P.(C) 264(AP)/2022. The said WP(C) 264(AP)/2022 was disposed of by order dated 04.08.2022, with a direction to the Commissioner, Education, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner. The said representation was rejected by passing a speaking order dated 24.08.2022. 6. By filing W.P.(C) 292(AP)/2022, the petitioner had assailed the hereinbefore referred transfer order and speaking order. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court by judgment and order dated 28.09.2022. However, in Intra-Court appeal filed by the petitioner, by judgment and order dated 22.09.2023, W.A. No. 219/2023 was allowed by holding that the petitioner was transferred to accommodate respondent no.5 and therefore, illegal. Against the said judgment, the respondent no. 5 had filed Special Leave Petition (C) 22612/2023 before the Supreme Court of India, which was dismissed by order dated 13.10.2023. In the meanwhile, the petitioner joined as DDSE, Aalo on 11.10.2023. 7. The petitioner claims that as he came to know that the respondent no. 5 is trying to get posted as DDSE, Aalo, the petitioner had submitted a representation before the Chief Minister on 19.12.2023 with copy to the Commissioner, Education and submitted another representation before the Minister of Education and Commissioner, Education, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh on 17.07.2024, this time projecting that he would be superannuating in 7 (seven) months. 8. By an order dated 07.08.2024, issued by the Commissioner (Education), the petitioner was transferred from DDSE, Aalo to Principal, NMG HSS, Aalo; respondent no. 5 was transferred from DDSE (HQ), Itanagar to the post of DDSE, Aalo in place of petitioner; and Jirken Bagra (respondent no.7) who was working as Principal, NMG HSS, Aalo was transferred as DDEE (HQ), Itanagar. On 08.08.2024, the petitioner had submitted a representation to the Commissioner (Education) and till the filing of this writ petition, the said representation was not considered. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed. 9. By referring to the documents annexed to this writ petition, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this time, the respondent no. On 08.08.2024, the petitioner had submitted a representation to the Commissioner (Education) and till the filing of this writ petition, the said representation was not considered. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed. 9. By referring to the documents annexed to this writ petition, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this time, the respondent no. 5 has been transferred owing to U.O. note dated 05.07.2024, by the MLA of 30 Aalo West (ST) Assembly Constituency, requesting the Minister (Education) to transfer respondent no. 5 as DDSE, Aalo and to transfer the petitioner as Principal, NMGHSS, Aalo. The concerned MLA is impleaded herein as respondent no.6. It is submitted that there was no departmental recommendation note to transfer the petitioner, rather it was stated in the file notes dated 25.07.2024 that the petitioner would superannuate in 7 (seven) months. Hence, it is submitted that the transfer of the petitioner without any departmental recommendation at the instance of political interference was mala fide exercise of power to accommodate the respondent no.5. 10. In support of his submissions, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Teachers Transfer Policy as well as Transfer circulars dated 02.06.1998 and 18.08.2021. 11. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the Education Department has vehemently objected to the prayers made in the writ petition. He has submitted that the petitioner has been posted within the same station and therefore, he would not suffer any prejudice. It was submitted that transfer and posting is within the prerogative of the State Executive and therefore, the Court should not routinely interfere with the decision of the Government on transfer of its employees. 12. In support of the said contention, the learned standing counsel for Education Department has cited the following case, viz., State of Assam & Ors. v. Dilip Kumar Das, 2003 (1) GLT 530 (DB). 13. The learned senior counsel for the respondent no.5 has submitted that the present case is similar to the facts under which the Supreme Court of India had decided the case of Pubi Lombi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine 278 was decided, which arose out of judgment and order dated 11.07.2023, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 266/2023. In the said case, the transfer order was initiated by the MLA, 29 Basar (ST) Legislative Assembly Constituency by U.O. Note dated 28.02.2023. In the said case, the learned Single Judge had upheld the transfer order, which was reversed in Intra-Court appeal and the Supreme Court had affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge without finding any infirmity with the note put up by political person. 14. It has been submitted that in the present case, the transfer is not on the basis of the U.O. note of the respondent no.6, but it has happened after due intra-departmental deliberations which is evident from the file note sheet, which the petitioner has annexed to the writ petition, which also discloses that the U.O. note of the respondent no. 6 was entered in the file on 05.05.2024 and the matter was deliberated in the Education Department for more than 2 (two) months and then proposal was made on 24.07.2024 to transfer 12 officials including the petitioner. The Minister Education then gave his note on 30.07.2024 and on 06.08.2024, the proposal was finally approved and departmental direction was issued on 07.08.2024 to issue the notification. Thus, it was submitted that the decision was not taken in haste, but was taken after due deliberation without being influenced by the U.O. note of the respondent no.6. It was also submitted that the petitioner is still stationed in his home town as desired. Therefore, a mere change in office is not at all prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. 15. In support of his submissions, the following cases were cited, viz., (a) Pubi Lombi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 279, (b) State of West Bengal v. Amrita Lal Singha Roy, (1991) 1 SLR 574 : (1991) 62 FLR 144 . 16. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 6 and 7 have submitted that whatever they wanted to submit has already been submitted by the learned senior counsel for respondent no. 5 and therefore, instead of repetition, they would adopt the same submissions. 17. For the petitioner, this is third round of litigation on his transfer. First being W.P.(C) 264(AP)/2022, second being W.P.(C) 292(AP)/2022 and connected W.A. No. 219/2023, and this is his third writ petition by the petitioner. 18. In the present case, it is not in disputed that the U.O. note of the respondent no. 17. For the petitioner, this is third round of litigation on his transfer. First being W.P.(C) 264(AP)/2022, second being W.P.(C) 292(AP)/2022 and connected W.A. No. 219/2023, and this is his third writ petition by the petitioner. 18. In the present case, it is not in disputed that the U.O. note of the respondent no. 6 was entered in the concerned e-file on 05.05.2024. In his capacity as the MLA, respondent no.6 had stated in his U.O. note to the effect that (a) Sri Yidak Angu (respondent no.5), presently posted as DDSE, Itanagar to the post of DDSE, West Siang District in place of present DDSE Sri Duken Kato (petitioner); (b) Sri Duken Kato, DDSE, West Siang District may be posted at Nehru Memorial School, Aalo in place of present Principal of Nehru Memorial School; and (c) Sri Jirken Bagra may be posted as DDEE, Itanagar. In the note no. 14 to 43, there is absolutely no discussion on the transfer proposal in respect of the petitioner as desired by respondent no.6. However, by way of note no. 44 dated 25.07.2024, the three transfers, as desired by the respondent no. 6 is entered in the final transfer proposal, which is approved and notified on 07.08.2024. 19. Thus, the inclusion of the three transfers in the impugned transfer order dated 07.08.2024, in verbatim, as has been desired by the respondent no. 6 appears to be influenced by the U.O. note of the respondent no.6. 20. As per clause-(d) of the Circular dated 02.06.1998, issued by the Department of Personnel regarding transfer and posting, it is prescribed to the effect that “Officers are not to be transferred one year before retirement as it may affect preparation of their pension papers, etc. However, generally officers posted in the field/ work divisions should be posted out to the office headquarters one year before retirement.” 21. By circular dated 20.08.2021, issued by the Department of Personnel, by referring to the aforesaid transfer circular dated 02.06.1998, a note of anxiety was expressed to the effect that “… it has been observed that departments are not following the guidelines scrupulously, hence the aforesaid transfer posting guidelines are reiterated for strict compliance of all the departments.” 22. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of the Court on notification dated 10.02.2020, in respect of Teachers Transfer and Posting Policy, 2019-20 (Education). The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of the Court on notification dated 10.02.2020, in respect of Teachers Transfer and Posting Policy, 2019-20 (Education). As per Clause-8 therefore, Transfer Calendar indicating the time-schedule is provided for, requiring disposal of all transfer related cases and process completion between 16th May and 31st May every year. Moreover, under Clause 9(xvi) thereof, it is prescribed that teachers having 24 months or less than that before retirement shall generally not be transferred, though they may have completed their 5 years in the same school, as it may otherwise affect preparation of their pension papers, etc., unless the teacher herself/himself has sought transfer.” 23. The learned counsel for the Education Department has not been able to show that in the departmental note sheet, any of the transfer policy/ guidelines in force has been discussed. Rather, at the end of note no. 44, it is mentioned that the petitioner has only 7 (seven) months left for retirement on superannuation i.e. in February, 2025. 24. Therefore, this is a clear case where the executive have mortgaged their discretion to comply with the directions contained in the U.O. note put up on 05.07.2024 in the concerned file, which was given by respondent no.6. The non-discussion of the U.O. note of the respondent no. 6 is so far as the petitioner is concerned leads to a presumption that the said note itself was a decision and therefore, no one in the Education Department had dared to discuss the proposal, which ultimately found place in the final transfer proposal. 25. It has been submitted that a transfer guideline is merely a guideline and the order of transfer can be made to serve administrative exigencies. There is no quarrel with the said proposition. However, when we examine the immediate past, it is seen that the respondent no.5 was transferred to the post vice the petitioner as DDSE, Aalo, which was put to challenge by the petitioner by filing WP(C) 292(AP)/2022, which was dismissed and the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 22.09.2023, passed in WP(C) 219/2023, was pleased to set aside and quash the transfer and posting of the petitioner and the respondent no.5 and accordingly, the petitioner had joined the said post of DDSE, Aalo on 11.10.2023. This time, after 9 (nine) months on 05.07.2024, a U.O. note was submitted by the respondent no.6, who is the MLA, Aalo and bring respondent no.5 in his place. The said request though not made a part of decision-making process, was in-verbatim. 26. There is a notification dated 10.02.2020 regarding teachers transfer and posting policy, 2019-20, issued on 10.02.2020, which envisages two types of transfer under clause-4 of the said policy, being (1) Administrative Transfer, in the exigencies of service in the public interest or on administrative grounds; and (2) Transfer on Request, which is to be affected based on the request of a teacher and eligibility as per policy and under clause-9(xvi) thereof, by which it is prescribed that teachers having 24 months or less than that before retirement shall generally not be transferred, though they may have completed their 5 years in the same school, as it may otherwise affect preparation of their pension papers, etc., unless the teacher herself/himself has sought transfer. Apart from the said transfer policy, there is another circular on transfer dated 02.06.1998, issued by Department of Personnel and under the clause-1(d) thereof, the officers are not to be transferred one year before retirement as it may affect preparation of their pension papers etc. The Department of Personnel took notice of non-adherence to the said transfer circular dated 02.06.1998 and issued another circular dated 18.08.2021 directing that the transfer guidelines dated 02.06.1998 should be strictly complied with by all departments. Accordingly, in the considered opinion of the Court, the facts of the present case is distinguishable from the facts which appear in the decision cited by the learned counsel for the Education Department as well as the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.5. In the present case, unless the Govt. really wanted that at the penultimate year of service of a teacher, she/her should not be transferred, the appropriate Govt. would have merely issued only one circular dated 02.06.1998 and there was no necessity to issue another circular dated 18.08.2021 and also to frame Teachers Transfer and Posting Policy, 2019-2020 by issuing a notification dated 10.02.2020. After Govt. reiterates its policy of transfer not once but thrice, it is unacceptable that the Govt. had no intention that the Teacher Transfer Policy has not be implemented and need not be followed by its authorities in the Education Department. 27. After Govt. reiterates its policy of transfer not once but thrice, it is unacceptable that the Govt. had no intention that the Teacher Transfer Policy has not be implemented and need not be followed by its authorities in the Education Department. 27. There is no material on record to show that the authorities in the file notes of the Education Department and not recorded its satisfaction that the transfer of the petitioner was required for administrative reasons or the transfer was made on request as per clause-4(i) & (ii) of the Teachers Transfer and Posting Policy, 2019-20. As stated above, there is no discussion whatsoever for the transfer of the petitioner. Accordingly, as stated above, without any discussion specifically regarding to the petitioner, the name of the petitioner was entered into the proposed transfer order vide note no. 44 dated 25.07.2024. 28. From the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.6, it is disclosed that there was public representation dated 14.06.2024 for transfer of the petitioner on certain allegations contained therein. Prior to that an encroachment case regarding land of Govt. Higher Secondary School was registered by the Estate Officer, West Siang District and an order dated 22.04.2022 was passed therein. The said affidavit also contains reference to representations against the petitioner dated 31.07.2023, 21.08.2023, 16.09.2023, reminder dated 05.10.2023, issuance of show-cause notice dated 06.09.2023, petitioner’s joining report dated 11.10.2023, representation dated 18.10.2023, letter of ultimatum dated 31.10.2023, report dated 15.11.2023 from the Superintendent of Police, Aalo, complaint letter dated 17.11.2023, report dated 28.12.2023 on illegal encroachment submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, corrigendum letter sent by the Principal of Govt. Higher Secondary School, Aalo and copy of letter of information by land doners regarding representation-cum-reminder dated 08.01.2024. 29. Thus, it is seen from the contents of the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent no.6 that he is aware of the allegations against the petitioner. In the said affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.6, a complaint dated 01.02.2024 by the Deputy Commissioner, West Siang District, Aalo, addressed to the Commissioner (Education), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar is annexed as Annexure-1 series, which refers to various complaints narrated against the petitioner about alleged land grabbing, which is committed while he was the Principal of a particular Govt. school at Aalo. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar is annexed as Annexure-1 series, which refers to various complaints narrated against the petitioner about alleged land grabbing, which is committed while he was the Principal of a particular Govt. school at Aalo. However, in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4 by the Under Secretary to the Department of Education, it has been stated at paragraph 6.1 that the petitioner is a seniormost among serving Principal/DSE and a good administrator and that his service as a good administrator for well being of the students and affective school management at NMGHSS, Aalo is extremely required as a Principal of the said school. Therefore, it appears that the reasons assigned in paragraph 6.1 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent nos.1 to 4 is merely an eye wash in order to justify the transfer of the petitioner to the said school as its Principal at the fag end of his service career. The said reason assigned in paragraph 6.1 of the affidavit-in-opposition appears to be only a cover to justify the transfer. 30. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent nos.1 to 4, it has been stated in paragraph 8 that the transfer and posting of the petitioner has been issued on administrative exigency and in the interest of public service. However, such reasons are not contained in the note sheet of the concerned file, in which the decision to transfer of the petitioner was taken. 31. It is also required to be examined if any prejudice is suffered by the petitioner owing to a mere shifting of his place of posting from DDSE, Aalo to the post of Principal, NMGHSS, Aalo. In the said context, the learned senior counsel for the Education Department has cited the case of State of Assam v. Dilip Kumar Das, 2003 (1) GLT 530; State of Assam v. Ranjit Chandra Barman, 2008 (2) GLT 786; as well as State of Assam v. Dilip Kumar Sarma, (2011) 6 GLR 526. For the purpose of showing the meaning of what “transfer” is and what “posting” is, the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.5 has placed reliance in the case of Amrita Lal Singha Roy (supra). 32. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the Education Department has submitted notwithstanding that U.O. note dated 05.07.2024, but the transfer order dated 07.08.2024 is not based on the said U.O. note dated 05.07.2024. 32. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the Education Department has submitted notwithstanding that U.O. note dated 05.07.2024, but the transfer order dated 07.08.2024 is not based on the said U.O. note dated 05.07.2024. Moreover, there is nothing in the concerned file to show that the transfer order impugned in this writ petition issued on the basis of said U.O. note by the respondent no.6. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned transfer and posting order dated 07.08.2024 is a regular transfer which is made in the interest of administrative exigency. Moreover, it is submitted that transfer is an essential incidence of service. 33. It is further stated that the petitioner has not been transferred out of Aalo term and therefore, the nature transfer is liable to be equated as a incidence of shifting of office within the same station and therefore, such transfer is unlikely to cause any prejudice to the petitioner and there is no likelihood that there will be any delay in processing the papers of the petitioner. It is submitted that the posting of the petitioner as Principal of NMGHSS, Aalo is purely a internal arrangement of the Education Department for better and effective school management and in the interest of public service. 34. It is further submitted by the learned standing counsel for the Education Department that it is an incorrect projection by the petitioner that his transfer vide impugned order dated 07.08.2024 is in violation of judgment and order dated 22.09.2023 passed by the Division of Bench of this Court in W.A. no.219/2023 or in violation of the transfer policy of the state. Accordingly, it is submitted that Government servant has no right to remain at particular place of attachment. 35. Per contra the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.5 has also reiterated submissions made by the learned standing counsel for the Education Department. Accordingly, it is submitted that Government servant has no right to remain at particular place of attachment. 35. Per contra the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.5 has also reiterated submissions made by the learned standing counsel for the Education Department. It is also submitted that by virtue of an order dated 09.08.2024 issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Arunachal Pradesh, the respondent no.5 has been released from their office with effect from 08.08.2024 (A/N) to enable him to join his new place of posting as DDSE, Aalo, West Siang District, pursuant to which he has reported for joining before the Deputy Commissioner West Siang District, Aalo from 12.08.2024 (F/N) and accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner West Siang District, Aalo has issued a W.T./ Fax message dated 12.08.2024 to the effect that the respondent no.5 has joined as DDSE West Siang District, Aalo on 12.08.2024 (F/N). Accordingly, it is submitted that the said transfer order, impugned in this writ petition has been acted upon. 36. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent no.6 has submitted that on 15.06.2024, as public representative he has received a joint representation from prominent people of the area, thereby, ventilating their grievances against the petitioner, accusing him of encroaching the school land, damaging school property and misappropriating Government funds. Moreover, criminal case has also been registered against the petitioner regarding demolition of the school property and moreover and encroachment case is also pending against the petitioner for encroachment of school land and demolition of school property. Accordingly, it is submitted as a public representative he had made a request for transfer of the petitioner. 37. Perused the writ petition, affidavit-in-opposition by respondent nos. 1 to 4, affidavit-in-reply by the petitioner against affidavit-in-opposition by respondent nos. 1 to 4, affidavit-in-opposition by respondent no. 5, affidavit-in-reply by the petitioner against affidavit-in-opposition by respondent no. 5, affidavit-in-opposition by respondent no. 6, affidavit-in-reply by the petitioner against affidavit-in-opposition by respondent no. 6. Also considered the submissions made and cases cited at the Bar. 38. For the petitioner, this is the third round of writ petition. A brief reiteration of the background facts of the case would be necessary. 5, affidavit-in-opposition by respondent no. 6, affidavit-in-reply by the petitioner against affidavit-in-opposition by respondent no. 6. Also considered the submissions made and cases cited at the Bar. 38. For the petitioner, this is the third round of writ petition. A brief reiteration of the background facts of the case would be necessary. On 13.01.2021, the petitioner had submitted a representation to the effect that he has been outside his home district for more than 16 (sixteen) years and accordingly, he had requested for posting at Aalo, West Siang District so as to enable him to take care of his then 90 years old ailing mother. Accordingly, the petitioner was transferred from the Office of the Director of Education, Itanagar and posted as Deputy Director of School Education, West Siang District, Aalo (DDSE, Aalo for short), where he joined on 10.05.2021. Thereafter, on 29.07.2021, the petitioner was transferred from Aalo to Itanagar and respondent No.5, namely, Sri Yidak Angu, who was working as Principal Government Higher Secondary School, Yomcha, West Siang District to Aalo as DDSE, Aalo. Accordingly, in order to assail the said transfer order, the petitioner had filed W.P.(C) 264 (AP)/ 2022. This Court by order dated 04.08.2022, directed the School Education Department to consider the representation dated 01.08.2022, submitted by the petitioner within 10 days and interim order was passed for maintaining of status quo till disposal of such representation. The Commissioner, Department of School Education (respondent no.2) had rejected the said representation by a speaking order dated 24.08.2022. 39. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had filed W.P.(C) 292(AP)/2022 to assail the transfer order and the speaking order, amongst others, on the ground that the transfer was initiated on the basis of U.O. note of the M.L.A., Dirang. The learned Single Judge had not interfered with said impugned transfer order. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an intra Court appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.09.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 292(AP)/2022. The learned Single Judge had not interfered with said impugned transfer order. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an intra Court appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.09.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 292(AP)/2022. The Division Bench of this Court, by judgment and order dated 22.09.2023, allowed W.A. No. 219/2023 filed by the petitioner after a thorough discussion on all the issues raised therein and resultantly, the order dated 28.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 292(AP)/2022 was reversed by setting aside (i) the transfer order dated 21.07.2022, issued on 29.07.2022, as well as (ii) the speaking order dated 24.08.2022 passed by the Commissioner (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh (respondent No.2), in so far as it concerned the transfer and posting of the petitioner and the respondent No.5. 40. Aggrieved by the by the judgment and order dated 22.09.2023, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 219/2023, the respondent No.5, Sri Yidak Angu, approached the Supreme Court of India by filing Special Leave Appeal (C) No(s). 22012/2023, which was, however, dismissed vide order dated 13.10.2023. 41. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.5 has placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Pubi Lombi (supra) in support of his submission. 42. In the case of Pubi Lombi (supra), the authorities had examined the U.O. note written by the M.L.A. for posting of the appellant therein to the post of DDSE, Leperada and thereafter, exercised discretion in favour of the appellant therein and to retain the respondent no.5 therein in the same post and in the same district and in same status which he was holding prior to the issuance of transfer order, without affecting his salary. Therefore, on such facts it was held that the transfer order was not liable to interfered with. In connection with the present case in hand, it was submitted that the petitioner was transferred within the same Aalo town, which amounts to only shifting of office and cannot be set to be a transfer in violation of the transfer policy of the State. 43. The Department of Education, Government of Arunachal Pradesh has framed the Teachers Transfer and Posting Policy 2019-20 (Education). Under clause 9(xvi) thereof, it is provided that teachers having 24 (twenty four) months or less for retirement shall not be transferred. 43. The Department of Education, Government of Arunachal Pradesh has framed the Teachers Transfer and Posting Policy 2019-20 (Education). Under clause 9(xvi) thereof, it is provided that teachers having 24 (twenty four) months or less for retirement shall not be transferred. In the file note no. 44 dated 25.07.2024, it is mentioned to the effect that the petitioner has been posted as per High Court’s order dated 22.09.2023 and that he has only 7 (seven) months left for his superannuation in the month of February, 2025. 44. In paragraph 23 of the writ petition, the petitioner has alleged mala fide in respect of his transfer. However, in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent nos. 1 to 4, there is no reply against the specifically pleaded allegations of mala fide. The U.O. note for transfer of the respondent no.5 was initiated by the respondent No.6, who was the then M.L.A. of 30-Aalo West (ST) Assembly Constituency. The respondent no.6 has also filed his affidavit- in-opposition. However, in respect of the statements made in paragraph 23 of the writ petition, the respondent No.6 has stated in paragraph 5 of his affidavit-in-opposition to the effect that he does not deem it necessary to offer any comments. However, he has reiterated that the U.O. note was initiated without any malice or mala fide intention. Thus, the respondent no.2, being the Commissioner (Education), is the decision making authority, having not specifically denied the allegations of the petitioner that the impugned transfer order dated 07.08.2024 was mala fide, the non-denial amounts of an admission as per the doctrine of non-traverse. 45. In view of the non denial of allegations of mala fide by the respondent nos. 1 to 4, who are the authorities in the Education Department of Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, the case of Pubi Lombi (supra) does not help the respondent no.5 because under the facts of the said case, the Supreme Court of India had elaborately discussed the issue of mala fide as well as on the legal issue that the persons against whom mala fide is alleged, are required to be impleaded as respondents to enable them to answer the charge. In this case mala fide has been specifically alleged against the official respondents in paragraph 23 of the writ petition, wherein it has been stated to the effect that the transfer order was issued solely at the behest of respondent no.6 and to accommodate the respondent no.5. Thus, it is seen that all the concerned parties against whom mala fide is alleged, are respondents in this writ petition. 46. In this case the Department of Personnel, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh has issued an order no. APTT-19/90 dated 02.06.1998, regarding policy guidelines on transfer and posting of all categories of officers and staff under the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. The said policy was amended vide notification bearing PERS-126/2004/1516 dated 19.12.2008. Thereafter, the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh has issued a circular no. PERS-40/13/2021 dated 18.08.2021, wherein it is mentioned that it has been observed that departments are not following the guidelines scrupulously and accordingly, direction was issued to the effect that the aforesaid transfer and posting policy guidelines are reiterated for strict compliance, further clarifying that in terms of aforesaid guidelines, the normal tenure of posting for all categories of officers and staff is 2 (two) years. In clause 1(d) of Circular No. APPTT-19/90 dated 02.06.1998, it has been provided that the officers are not to be transferred one year before retirement as it may affect preparation of their pension papers, etc. By a notification no. SEDM-276/2019 dated 10.02.2020, the Secretary (Education), Department of Education, Government of Arunachal Pradesh had issued Teachers Transfer and Posting Policy, 2019-2020 (Education) and as stated above, under clause 9 (xvi) thereof, it is provided that teachers having 24 (twenty four) months or less than that shall generally not be transferred as it may otherwise affect the preparation of pension papers, etc. unless the teacher herself/himself has sought transfer. 47. In this case, W.A. No. 219/2023 was decided by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 22.09.2023, whereby (i) the petitioner’s transfer order dated 21.07.2022, issued on 29.07.2022, and (ii) the speaking order dated 24.08.2022 were set aside. The said transfer order was issued pursuant to the U.O. note by which the MLA, Dirang had requested the transfer of respondent no.5. The impugned transfer order of the petitioner was initiated on the basis of U.O. note dated 05.05.2024, this time by the then MLA, 30-Aalo West (ST) Assembly Constituency. The said transfer order was issued pursuant to the U.O. note by which the MLA, Dirang had requested the transfer of respondent no.5. The impugned transfer order of the petitioner was initiated on the basis of U.O. note dated 05.05.2024, this time by the then MLA, 30-Aalo West (ST) Assembly Constituency. Although the decision to transfer the petitioner was not taken in haste and the transfer order was issued on 07.08.2024. Be that as it may, as the allegation of mala fide made in paragraph 23 of the writ petition has not been specifically denied, the case of Amrita Lal Singha Roy (supra), cited by the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.5 would not help the respondent no.5 in any manner. 48. Moreover, the petitioner has claimed that he would be superannuating in the month of January, 2025 and in this regard, the transfer and posting policy guidelines referred hereinbefore provides that if a transfer is made within a period of a year from the employee’s superannuation it may affect processing of his pension papers, etc. Hence, the Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order of the transfer of the petitioner dated 07.08.2024, being contrary to the transfer policy guidelines vide (i) circular no. APPTT-19/90 dated 02.06.1998, (ii) order no. PERS-126/2004/ 1516 dated 19.12.2008 and (iii) circular no. PERS-40/13/2021 dated 18.08.2021, all issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, are not sustainable. A repetition of same advisory issued thrice, not to transfer an officer one year before retirement as it may affect preparation of pension paper, etc. ought to have been kept in mind and considered by the respondent authorities in the Education Department before issuing the impugned transfer order. As mentioned herein before in the File Note No. 44 dated 25.07.2024 in the concerned file, the under Secretary to the School Education Department had clearly indicated that the petitioner was posted as per High Court’s order dated 22.09.2023 and he has only 7 (seven) months left for retirement in February, 2025 is not found to be considered in the file note nos. 45 (dated 25.07.2024) to 59 (dated 07.08.2024). 45 (dated 25.07.2024) to 59 (dated 07.08.2024). Had the same been deliberated and/or considered by the authorities and then opined that the transfer, contrary to the three guidelines, will not affect the preparation of petitioner’s pension papers, the challenge to petitioner’s transfer could have been successfully negated in light of the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357 . Accordingly, the case of Ranjit Chandra Barman (supra), Dilip Kumar Das (supra), and Dilip Kumar Sarma (supra) also does not come to the aid of the Education Department. 49. However, as the relevant factors mentioned in (i) circular no. APPTT-19/90 dated 02.06.1998, (ii) order no. PERS-126/2004/ 1516 dated 19.12.2008 and (iii) circular no. PERS-40/13/2021 dated 18.08.2021, all issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Arunachal Pradesh on the issue of transfer and posting policy, has not been considered by the respondent authorities, the case of S.L. Abbas (supra) is not found to help the respondents. 50. Therefore, in light of the discussions above, the Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order of transfer dated 31.07.2024, bearing memo no. SEBN-11011/1/2024/298 dated 07.08.2024, issued by the Commissioner Education, Department of Education, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, is liable to be set aside and quashed in so far as it relates to the petitioner, Sri Duken Kato, presently posted as DDSE, Aalo, who is transferred as Principal, NMGHSS, Aalo. Consequently, the respondents are restrained from giving effect to the order of transfer posting of respondent no.5, Sri Yidak Angu, from the post of DDSE (HQ) to the post of DDSE, Aalo. 51. It is further clarified that it would be open to the respondent authorities to pass an appropriate order in respect of respondent no.7, Sri Jirken Bagra, whose name appears in the serial no.3 of the impugned transfer. In other words, save and except for the petitioner and the respondent nos. 6 and 7, this order will not affect any other transfer made by the impugned transfer order dated 31.07.2024, issued vide memo no. SEDN-11011/1/2024/298 dated 07.08.2024 (Annexure-L to writ petition). 52. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. 53. The parties are left to bear their own cost.