JUDGMENT AND ORDER : K.R. Surana, J. Heard Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Govt. Advocate for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12.06.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 624/2024, by which the writ petition was dismissed, the present intra court appeal has been filed. 3. In brief, the case of the appellant is that he was appointed as Finance and Accounts Officer/ Treasury Officer (Group-A Gazetted) vide order dated 31.03.2009. He was initially posted as Treasury Officer, Bomdila, West Kameng District. Thereafter, in the month of August, 2018, the appellant was transferred to Treasury Office, Tawang. Thereafter, by the impugned order No. DA/11/384/2024 dated 24.07.2024, along with 11 other officers, the appellant was transferred from Treasury Office, Tawang to Treasury Office, Longding, inter alia, directing that he would hold the additional charge of Sub-Treasury Office, Kanubari. On 30.10.2024, the appellant had submitted a representation before the Commissioner (Finance), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh against his transfer on four grounds, viz., (i) there was no sanctioned post of Treasury Officer at Longding District and STO, Kanubari; (ii) he was then posted as Treasury Officer, Tawang and his wife was working as District Research Officer, Tawang; (iii) his younger son was studying in Tawang in Class-IV and after his transfer, his studies may hamper; and (iv) his ailing grand-parents were with him, who needed 24 hours care in their old age. Accordingly, the appellant had requested the authorities to cancel his transfer and posting or to transfer and post him to the nearby district. Thereafter, by an office order No. TE-1459/2018 dated 06.11.2024 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Tawang District, the appellant was released on transfer w.e.f. 11.11.2024 (A/N) to enable him to join new place of posting. The appellant appeared before the Deputy Commissioner, Longding District on 18.11.2024 and submitted his joining report. 4. The respondent no.2 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition and opposed the challenge to the transfer of the appellant. It was stated that by virtue of the Government order no. DA/VI/15/2009 dated 06.03.2020, the Longding Sub- Treasury Office was upgraded to District Treasury Office. The appellant appeared before the Deputy Commissioner, Longding District on 18.11.2024 and submitted his joining report. 4. The respondent no.2 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition and opposed the challenge to the transfer of the appellant. It was stated that by virtue of the Government order no. DA/VI/15/2009 dated 06.03.2020, the Longding Sub- Treasury Office was upgraded to District Treasury Office. However, it has also been stated that though the Sub-Treasury Office has been upgraded to Treasury Office, but the sanctioned post of Sub-Treasury Officer (STO for short) was not discontinued and the last STO, who was posted at Longding, was transferred to Treasury Office at Palin, Kra-Dari District as In-charge Treasury Officer. 5. The learned Single Judge, upon considering of the materials available on record, arrived at a conclusion that although no sanctioned post of Treasury Officer existed at the time of the transfer of the appellant, the Sub-Treasury Office having been upgraded to a District Treasury Office, it cannot be said that the appellant has been transferred and posted to a non-existent post. The learned Single Judge also took notice that the State respondent have initiated steps for creating of the post of the Treasury Officer and is said to be under active consideration of the State Government. Accordingly, it was held that no prejudice would be caused to the appellant on being transfer as Treasury Officer to the District Treasury Office, Longding as the said would not violate any service condition. Accordingly, it was held that although the post of Treasury Officer at District Treasury Office, Longding is yet to be sanctioned, upon its up- gradation, the office would be manned by the Treasury Officer, where the appellant has been transferred without deprivation of any benefits including status and other service conditions and therefore, the case of Jumtum Tato v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors., (2019) 3 GLR 324, and Sunil Shrirang Bawaskar (Dr.) v. Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapith, 2010 (4) Mh.L.J. 384, relied by the learned counsel for the appellant were distinguishable. Resultantly, the petition was dismissed. 6. While assailing the impugned judgment and order, the learned counsel for the appellant had urged all the 19 grounds of appeal as narrated in the memo of appeal. However, the sum and substance of the submissions were same as had been urged before the learned Single Judge. Resultantly, the petition was dismissed. 6. While assailing the impugned judgment and order, the learned counsel for the appellant had urged all the 19 grounds of appeal as narrated in the memo of appeal. However, the sum and substance of the submissions were same as had been urged before the learned Single Judge. It was emphasised that if there is no sanctioned post how could the appellant, who was holding the rank of Finance and Accounts Officer/ Treasury Officer could have been appointed to hold the office of Sub-Treasury Officer, which was a Group-B Gazetted post. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following decisions, viz., (i) Jumtum Tato (supra), (ii) Sunil Shrirang Bawaskar (Dr.), (iii) Ramzan Ali Ahmed v. Taiyabali Ahmed, 1998 (2) GLT 242, and (iv) S.N.R. Netam v. The State of Chhattisgarh & 2 Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine Chh 575. 7. Per contra, the learned Senior Govt. Advocate has made his submissions in support of the impugned judgment and order and by relying on the case of N.K. Singh v. Union of India & Anr., (1994) 6 SCC 98 , has submitted that interference with transfer orders would be justified only in cases of mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle and not in cases where career prospects remain unaffected and no detriment is caused. 8. In this case, the learned counsel for the appellant could not show from the record any document to repel the contention of the learned Senior Govt. Advocate that the Longding Sub-Treasury Office was not upgraded and/ or falsely claimed to have been upgraded to District Treasury Office. Moreover, there is no material on record to show that despite up-gradation of Longding Sub-Treasury Office to District Treasury Office, the appellant had suffered any downgrading of his status below that of Finance and Accounts Officer/ Treasury Officer. In this regard, the appellant has not produced any document to show that due to non-existence of the sanctioned post of Finance and Accounts Officer/ Treasury Officer, the appellant is non-drawing salary and other emoluments drawn by an officer of the post/ rank of Finance and Accounts Officer/ Treasury Officer, but he is drawing the salary of any subordinate post/rank. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that the appellant was the care giver for his aged grandparents. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that the appellant was the care giver for his aged grandparents. However, no pleading to the said effect is found to have been made in the writ petition, but this was a ground taken in the representation dated 30.10.2024. Moreover, even in this intra court appeal, there is no pleading as to why the appellant cannot join the new place of posting, accompanied by his grandparents. Moreover, the appellant has projected that his wife is a government servant and is posted at Tawang, which has also been stated in the representation dated 30.10.2024. In this regard, it may be further stated that in the writ petition, the appellant has not prayed that the competent authority should be directed to dispose of his representation dated 30.10.2024 so as to enable the competent authority to consider the grounds urged by the appellant in the said representation. 10. As regards the issue of transfer and posting of both the husband and wife at the same place of posting is concerned, the same is done by the government on the strength of policy/ guidelines in force. It cannot be said merely because there exists a guideline regarding transfer and posting of husband and wife, preferably at the same place of posting, the transfer of appellant should be set aside merely because his wife has not been transferred. In this regard, it may be mentioned that in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, the normal tenure of posting is 2 years. As per the pleadings made in paragraph 7 of the writ petition, which is not stated in the statements made in the memo of appeal, the appellant was posted as Treasury Officer, Tawang in the month of August, 2018. Thus, the appellant is seemed to have remained in the same posting for more than 6 years as he has been released only w.e.f. 11.11.2024. Therefore, in any event, as per the existing guidelines in force, the transfer of the appellant is found to have been long overdue. For the aforesaid reason, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant do not come to the aid of the appellant. 11. The Court, in this intra court appeal, would not substitute its opinion over the considered decision of learned Single Judge, refusing to interfere with the impugned transfer order. 12. For the aforesaid reason, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant do not come to the aid of the appellant. 11. The Court, in this intra court appeal, would not substitute its opinion over the considered decision of learned Single Judge, refusing to interfere with the impugned transfer order. 12. The fact that the appellant has young school going children and/or aged grandparents, is to be considered by the concerned authority in the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. The appellant had not prayed in the writ petition for a direction upon respondent authorities to dispose of his representation. Therefore, the learned Single Judge, having been called upon to examine the legality or otherwise of the impugned transfer order, considered it in the light of the materials before him and dismissed the writ petition. The decision of the learned Single Judge is not found to be vitiated for any reason whatsoever. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the learned Single Judge had considered irrelevant materials or failed to appreciate any pleadings or materials on record. Therefore, in this intra court appeal, no ground is made out by the appellant for interference with the decision of the learned Single Judge in this intra court appeal. 13. In the case of N.K. Singh (supra), cited by the learned Senior Govt.Advocate, the Supreme Court of India has held as follows: “24. ... Challenge in courts of a transfer when the career prospects remain unaffected and there is no detriment to the government servant must be eschewed and interference by courts should be rare, only when a judicially manageable and permissible ground is made out. ...” 14. Accordingly, in light of the discussions above, this intra court appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost.