Smti Rojum Ado Ete Vs The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC040010462026

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/311/2026

¶5

Smti Rojum Ado Ete

¶6

Wife of Shri Ige Ete, resident of Darka Village, PO and PS Aalo, Arunachal Pradesh and presently serving as Account Officer and holding the In Charge of Finance and Account Officer, Aalo, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of AP and 2 Ors represented by the Commissioner, Finance, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Dirctor Age: 0 Occupation : Audit and Pension Naharlagun Papum Pare District Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:Smti Gamy Padu Age: 0 Occupation : Wife of Shri Peduk Ete resident of Village Bene PO and PS Aalo West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh and presently serving as Account Officer in the Directorate of Audit and Pension Naharlagun Arunachal Pradesh

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : Marto Kato, Oli Jerang,Kamin Teri,Tony Meto,Yasmin Gao,Mipe Ete,Nyali Sora

¶10

Page No.# 2/5

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP),

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 03.07.2026

¶15

Heard Mr. M. Kato, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Y. Riram, learned State Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

¶16

2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the order dated 26.06.2026, issued on 01.07.2026, passed by the Commissioner (Finance), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, whereby 3 (three) Assistant Audit Officers (AAOs), including the petitioner, have been transferred. By the said impugned order, the petitioner has been transferred from West Siang District, Aalo to Shi-Yomi District to be stationed at Tato, whereas respondent No. 3, namely, Smti Gamy Padu, has been transferred and posted to West Siang District to be stationed at Aalo, in place of the petitioner.

¶17

3. Considering the issue involve in this writ petition, which pertains to transfer posting, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage.

¶18

4. Mr. M. Kato, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been transferred to a place where no sanctioned post of Assistant Audit Officer is available. He submits that the petitioner has recently undergone gallbladder surgery and the treating doctor has advised her to avoid travelling long distance and has recommended periodic follow-up examinations. He also submits that the mother of the petitioner, who is aged about 72 years old, is

¶19

Page No.# 3/5

¶20

bedridden and her elder sister is a person suffering from Cerebral Palsy with 60% permanent disability. The petitioner is the only caregiver of her mother and elder sister. Therefore, he submits that the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the petitioner's case for retention at Aalo on humanitarian grounds.

¶21

5. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

¶22

6. The Commissioner (Finance), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, by the impugned order dated 26.06.2026, issued on 01.07.2026, has transferred 3 (three) Assistant Audit Officers (AAOs), including the petitioner, by which the petitioner has been transferred from West Siang District, Aalo to Shi-Yomi District to be stationed at Tato; respondent No. 3 has been transferred from the Directorate of Audit & Pension (Headquarters), Naharlagun to West Siang District to be stationed at Aalo; and one Mr. Jumli Padu has been transferred from West Siang District, Aalo to Lepa-Rada District with additional charge of Lower Siang District to be stationed at Basar.

¶23

7. The challenge to the impugned transfer order is essentially founded on two grounds. Firstly, it is contended that there is no sanctioned post of Assistant Audit Officer at Tato in Shi-Yomi District. Secondly, the petitioner relies upon her own medical condition, as well as the medical condition of her mother and elder sister, the former being bedridden and the latter suffering from Cerebral Palsy with 60% permanent disability.

¶24

8. Insofar as the first ground is concerned, i.e. absence of a sanctioned post, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tsering Norbu Vs. The State of

¶25

Page No.# 4/5

¶26

Arunachal Pradesh & Ors. , passed in WA No. 34/2025 , has held that merely because there is no sanctioned post at a particular station, it cannot be said that an employee has been transferred to a non-existent post.

¶27

9. In N. K. Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr. , reported in (1994) 6 SCC 98 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that challenge in the 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.

¶28

10. It is also a settled proposition of law that the writ court would ordinarily be loath to interfere with an order of transfer unless it is actuated by mala fides, is in violation of any statutory rule or prescribed norm, or otherwise causes prejudice affecting the career prospects of the employee.

¶29

11. Regard being had to the petitioner's grievance regarding her medical condition and that of her mother and elder sister, this Court is of the considered view that such grievance is best examined by the competent administrative authority and not by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

¶30

12. In the present case, apart from the aforesaid two grounds, no material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the impugned transfer order suffers from mala fides, violates any statutory provision or prescribed norm, or causes any prejudice affecting the petitioner's career prospects. Therefore, no interference with the impugned transfer order is called for.

¶31

13. However, considering the medical condition of the petitioner and the circumstances relating to her mother and elder sister, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to

¶32

Page No.# 5/5

¶33

approach the respondent authorities for ventilation of her grievance

¶34

14. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation before the competent respondent authority within a period of 5 (five) days from today. Upon receipt of such representation, the competent authority shall consider and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order within a further period of 10 (ten) days from the date of receipt of the representation.

¶35

15. Till the representation is considered and disposed of, status quo, as on today, shall be maintained.

¶36

16. Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Comparing Assistant

Smti Rojum Ado Ete v. The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti Rojum Ado Ete 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Khenewa Group Vs The State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Mayur Drai and 9 Ors. Vs The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Smti Nikh Yaram Vs The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Priyangka Tayeng Vs The State of Ap and Others

Gungte Lapung and 25 Ors. Vs The State of Ap and 2 Ors.