Mori Riba Vs The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/7

¶2

GAHC040006112026

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/192/2026

¶5

Mori Riba

¶6

Son of Late Tamo Riba, presently serving as Divisional Forest Officer, Banderdewa, Forest Division, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of AP and 2 Ors represented by the Chief Secretary cum Principal Secretary, Department of EF and CC, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Principal Chief Conservator o Forest and Head of Forest Force Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:Taba Teni Age: 0 Occupation : presently serving as Assistant Conservator of Forest Office of the Divisional Forest Office Social Forestry FD Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : Rintu Saikia, Sr. Adv, K Bam,Mindo Taso,Idak Bam

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Oken Duggong,Honi Tana Tara,Atong Nangu,Phurpa Wangmu,Duge Soki,Nani Kuru,Baby Palon,Kirpi Nyorak,Nikita Danggen

¶11

Page No.# 2/7

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG

¶13

ORDER

¶14

04.05.2026

¶15

Heard Mr. R. Saikia, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. I. Bam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. D. Soki, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

¶16

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 28.04.2026 issued by respondent No. 2, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from the post of Divisional Forest Officer (in short, “DFO”), Banderdewa Forest Division, to DCF (Industries).

¶17

3. The case of the petitioner is that he is a Selection Grade Officer in the Arunachal Pradesh Forest Department, currently holding the post of DFO, Banderdewa, Forest Division. Earlier, by an order dated 14.02.2024, the petitioner was transferred from the office of the DFO, Mehao Wildlife Sanctuary, Roing to the Office of the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Sagalee. Subsequently, by an order dated 08.11.2024, the petitioner was again transferred from DFO, Sagalee Forest Division to DFO, Banderdewa Forest Division. Thereafter, by an order dated 24.12.2024, modifying the earlier order, the petitioner was directed to be retained at his previous posting at Sagalee. Being aggrieved, the petitioner made a representation dated 31.12.2024, which was rejected on 21.02.2025.

¶18

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 76(AP)/2025, which was allowed. By an order dated 19.05.2025, the Court set

¶19

Page No.# 3/7

¶20

aside the orders dated 24.12.2024 and 21.02.2025 and directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to discharge his duties in the office of the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Banderdewa. In compliance with the High Court’s order dated 19.05.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 76(AP)/2025, the petitioner was allowed to take charge as DFO, Banderdewa Forest Division, on 12.06.2025. However, by the impugned transfer order dated 28.04.2026, the petitioner has again been sought to be transferred from DFO, Banderdewa Forest Division, to DCF (Industries), and in his place, respondent No. 3 has been posted as DFO, Banderdewa Forest Division. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶21

5. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 3 was promoted from the post of Range Forest Officer (RFO) to Assistant Conservator of Forests (ACF) on 25.02.2026, and the said post carries a probation period of two years, followed by confirmation in service. Such confirmation is to be effected as per Rule 24 read with Rule 14 of the Arunachal Pradesh Forest Service Rules, 2019 [in short ‘APFS, Rules’ 2019]. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as on date, respondent No. 3 is still in the probation period as an ACF, which is lower in rank than the post of DFO held by the petitioner. He further submits that, taking cognizance of such procedural irregularity, this Court, in the earlier litigation, had set aside and quashed the impugned order and allowed the petitioner to remain in the office of the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Banderdewa. It is also submitted that, being a probationer in the cadre of ACF, respondent No. 3 cannot be posted as DFO in Banderdewa Forest Division, as it is impermissible under the APFS Rules, 2019. The learned senior counsel further submits that the petitioner has not yet been released from the post of DFO, Banderdewa.

¶22

Page No.# 4/7

¶23

6. The further case of the petitioner is that the impugned transfer order is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the transfer and posting guidelines dated 02.06.1998, 19.12.2008, and the Circular dated 18.08.2021, which regulate the transfer and posting of all categories of officers and staff in Arunachal Pradesh. Under the said guidelines, the normal tenure for transfer and posting is two years. Further, as per Clause 1(d) of the guidelines dated 02.06.1998, “officers are not to be transferred one year before retirement, as it may affect preparation of their pension papers.” In the present case, the petitioner has been transferred within a span of one year, and moreover, he is due to retire in March 2027, with only about 11 months remaining.

¶24

7. It is also submitted by Mr. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, that aggrieved by the above action of the respondent authority, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 29.04.2026 (Annexure-X to the writ petition) addressed to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (respondent No. 2) and Head of the Forest Force, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, requesting review/modification of his transfer order. However, no action has been taken on the same till date.

¶25

8. Mr. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that, since the representation seeking retention of the petitioner at Banderdewa is still pending consideration before the respondent authority, this writ petition may be disposed of at the motion stage itself with a direction to the respondent authority to dispose of the said representation and in the meantime, the impugned transfer order dated 28.04.2026 be stayed.

¶26

9. Per contra, Mr. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, submits that the transfer order was issued in the interest of public service. He further

¶27

Page No.# 5/7

¶28

submitted that the case of the petitioner must stand on its own merits and the petitioner cannot take advantage of alleged defects concerning other officers. Moreover, the DCF (Industries) post to which the petitioner has been transferred is located in Itanagar itself, which would be convenient for the petitioner, particularly in view of his impending retirement. He further fairly submits that there would be no difficulty for the State Government to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation by a reasoned order; however, he opposes the prayer for stay of the transfer order.

¶29

10. Mr. Soki, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, while refuting the petitioner’s contentions, submits that with regard to inter-se transfers between officers not similarly placed, the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court, by judgment and order dated 19.06.2025 passed in WA No. 21(AP)/2025 [ Er. Taban Tabing v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors .], has observed that although ordinarily such transfers may not be permissible, there is no absolute bar. It is further observed that while a higher officer ordinarily should not be replaced by a junior officer lacking competence, such transfer may be permissible if the officer concerned possesses the requisite knowledge, experience, and length of service.

¶30

11. The learned counsel for respondent No. 3 further submits that, as per the notification dated 09.03.2022 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests, Banderdewa, can be held only by an IFS cadre officer. The petitioner, being in the Selection Grade of DCF, falls under Category-B of Schedule-I of the Arunachal Pradesh Forest Service Rules, 2019, and is therefore not entitled to hold the post of DFO, Banderdewa.

¶31

Page No.# 6/7

¶32

12. It is further submitted that there is no violation of the transfer and posting guidelines dated 02.06.1998, as the petitioner has been posted in Itanagar itself, which would facilitate preparation of his pension papers and it would be beneficial to him.

¶33

13. Furthermore, it is submitted that pursuant to the transfer order dated 28.04.2026, respondent No. 3 has already been released from the establishment of the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry, Itanagar, on 29.04.2026 and has submitted his joining report to DFO, Banderdewa, on the same day.

¶34

14. There is no dispute that the writ petitioner is presently posted as DFO, Banderdewa, and has not yet been released. Although respondent No. 3 is stated to have joined the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Banderdewa Forest Division, on 29.04.2026, admittedly he has not yet taken over charge. However, since the transfer order dated 28.04.2026 has neither been modified nor stayed by any order of the Court or the respondent authority, it must be presumed that the said order continues to hold the field.

¶35

15. Under the given circumstances and in view of the fact and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the parties, this writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No. 2 to consider the representation dated 29.04.2026 submitted by the petitioner and to dispose of the same by a reasoned and speaking order within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶36

16. Further, the decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner, and until disposal of the said representation, status quo as on date with regard to the postings of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 shall be maintained.

¶37

Page No.# 7/7

¶38

17. With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Mori Riba v. The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mori Riba v. The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Bharali Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Jahindra Brahma Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Smt. Dipali Baruah Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Apurbo Roy Vs The Arunachal Pradesh Staff Selection Board and Anr.

Karik Pertin Vs Smti Nibia Modi

Smti Techi Menia Vs Taba Tem