DEEPAK TAYENG Vs. STATE OF AP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Jamoh, learned standing counsel for the Education Department (respondents No.1 to 4), and Mr. I. Chowdhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Biswakarma, the learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

(2.) The case of the petitioner in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that in the interest of public service, by an order No. 29/2019 dated 25.11.2019, the Education Department had transferred him and 28 others. At the relevant time, he was serving as In-Charge Deputy Director of School Education (hereinafter referred to as "DDSE" for short), Yinkiong, Upper Siang District cum- DDSE HQ and he was transferred and posted as DDSE, Roing, Lower Dibang Valley. The post which he was supposed to join was being held by the respondent No.5. Accordingly, the petitioner was released from his previous place of posting by virtue of a release order dated 29.11.2019 and he joined his new place of posting on 02.12.2019 by submitting his joining report to the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Dibang Valley, Roing. The information about the joining of the petitioner to his transferred post of DDSE, Roing was duly conveyed to the Secretary, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Department of Education by W.T./Fax message dated 02.12.2019. However, the respondent No.5 was adamant and reluctant, as such, he did not hand over the charge by remaining absent. Accordingly, the petitioner apprised the Deputy Commissioner, Roing and the Secretary, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Department of Education about the same by his letter dated 09.12.2019. However, the Secretary, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Department of Education by an order dated 11.12.2019, partially modified the transfer order dated 25.11.2019, inter-alia, retaining the respondent No.5 as DDSE, Roing and transferring the petitioner as DDSE, Longding, where the respondent No.5 was supposed to go, and that it was clarified therein that the modification would be in force till March, 2020. The order dated 11.12.2019, thereby modifying the transfer order has been put to challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the normal tenure of two years of the officers under transfer was over. It is also submitted that the respondent No.5 had taken a plea that he was a decorated officer and there were representations by public to retain him at Roing and, as such, it is submitted that the modification of the petitioner's transfer order is not sustainable because of utter absence of any overwhelming public interest, necessitating his transfer immediately after joining the post. It is also submitted that the respondent No.5 took a plea that he had submitted a representation against transfer. In that regard, it is submitted that there is no government policy in force to stay transfer on a mere asking of the officer under transfer, as such, even if the transfer was stayed on submitting representation, the impugned order was not sustainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following cases, viz., (i) Zakir Hussain Vs. State of Assam & Ors., 2001 3 GauLT 67; (ii) Tohelisumi Vs. State of Nagaland & Ors., 2009 2 GauLT 956, (iii) Ojing Jamoh Vs. The State of Arunachal Pradesh & 5 others, W.P.(C) 342(AP)/2018, decided on 13.05.2019.