WA 31/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.UPADHYAY (Amitava Roy, J) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 5.1.2011 rendered in WP( C) No. 396(AP)/2010 negating the challenge of the writ appellant (writ petitione r) to his order of transfer dated 28.9.2010 and also rejection of his representa tion dated 4.10.2010 against the same, he is in this appeal seeking redress. We have heard Mr KN Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Ms M Bora, learned Govt. Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh for the official respon dents. For the order proposed to be passed, which for the present would not hav e any adverse bearing on the interest of the respondent No.3, this appeal is bei ng disposed of at the admission stage. This is more so in the face of an affidav it filed by the appellant testifying dasti service on this respondent in terms o f the order of this Court. None has entered appearance on his behalf. The pleaded case of the appellant in short is that on being transferred and posted at Aalo in the West Siang district as District Medical Officer in the Department of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh in the year 2 007, he served his post without any blemish. Being on the verge of his retiremen t, he submitted a representation on 8.2.2010 with the Commissioner/Secretary of the Department seeking extension of his stay in the said station. By order dated 28.9.2010, however, he was transferred to Itanagar. By the said order, the resp ondent No.3 was posted out from Anini also to the Headquarters at Itanagar. One Dr. B. Padu, also a District Medical Officer was transferred from Anjaw in the s aid capacity to Aalo in his (appellant) place. The appellant, being aggrieved, s ubmitted a representation on 4.10.2010 before the aforementioned State authority . As his representation lay pending, he instituted WP(C) No. 370(AP)/2010 which was disposed of on 8.10.2010 with a direction to the Commissioner/ Secretary of the Department to dispose of his aforementioned representation within a time fra me fixed. The Department thereby was directed to maintain status-quo with regard to the service of the appellant as then. On 12.10.2010, however, the respondent No.3 joined as District Medical Officer a t Aalo i.e. the post of the appellant. On enquiries being made by him, it transp ired that meanwhile by order dated 1.10.2010 the respondent No.3 had been divert ed from Itanagar to Aalo in place of Dr. B. Padu for replacing him. Dr. B. Padu instead was directed to report at the Headquarters at Itanagar. In a continuing sequence by order dated 7.10.2010, Dr. B. Padu, DMO was retained at Anjaw thereb y again modifying the order dated 1.10.2010. According to the appellant, at the point of time when WP(C) No. 370(AP)/2010 was disposed of on 8.10.2010 there was no whisper of these orders dated 1.10.2010 and 7.10.2010. Eventually, the petit ioner’s representation dated 4.10.2010 was rejected vide order dated 29.10.2010 on the ground that he had completed more than three years at Aalo and that there was no justification whatsoever to retain him at that station. The learned Single Judge on a consideration of the materials on record r ejected the appellant’s assailment on the ground that the reason cited in the or der dated 29.10.2010, namely, completion of his normal tenure at Aalo was valid and acceptable. That the impugnment lacked imputation of malafide and/or extrane ous considerations was also recorded. Mr Choudhury has emphatically urged with particular reference to the or ders dated 1.10.2010 and 7.10.2010 that the appellant’s transfer can by no means be said to be in public interest and the same ought to have been interfered wit h by the learned Single Judge. According to the learned senior counsel, modifica tions in the original order of transfer dated 28.9.2010 being visibly to accommo date the respondent No.3 and Dr. B Padu favourably, rejection of the appellant’s representation on the ground as cited therein is patently illegal, arbitrary an d indefensible. Mr Choudhury urged that transfer, though an incidence of service , any administrative order to that effect cannot be uninformed with the essentia lity of fairness and transparency in action and sans public interest. The exigen cy of public interest being absent in the facts and circumstances of the present case, he pleaded that the impugned judgment and order as well as the order of h is transfer ought to be set aside in the interest of justice. The learned Govt. Advocate on the basis of the records has submitted tha t as the appellant admittedly at the relevant point of time had completed his no rmal tenure of three years at Aalo, his transfer therefrom by no means can be de nounced as illegal, arbitrary or whimsical. As decision to that effect was infor med with public interest, rejection of his representation also cannot be faulted with. She produced the relevant official records pertaining to the transfer of the appellant, the respondent No.3 and Dr. B. Padu. We have perused the official records and it transpires therefrom that th e orders dated 1.10.2010 and 7.10.2010 had admittedly been passed at the instanc e of the Minister of Health & Family Welfare contained in the Fax message dated 30.9.2010 and the approval of this administrative authority conveyed vide Memo N o. MHFW-06/2010 dated 7.10.2010. Noticeably, the impugned order of transfer date d 28.9.2010 had been issued with the approval of the Chief Minister of the State . The orders of modification dated 1.10.2010 and 7.10.2010, however, do not bear any testimony of the approval of the aforesaid State authority. No reason as su ch also is decipherable from the records impelling the modifications vis-à-vis t he two incumbents involved. This assumes significance in the teeth of the ground on which the appellant’s representation had been rejected by order dated 29.10. 2010. A plain reading of this order also does not disclose that this aspect had been dealt with by the authority concerned while declining to accede to the requ est of the appellant. The attention of the learned Single Judge had not been dra wn to this facet of the lis. The appellant’s grievance that he had been meted ou t a discriminatory treatment, thus, in the face of the above disclosures from th e records cannot be lightly brushed aside. The orders dated 1.10.2010 and 7.10.2 010 clearly disclose adjustments and re-adjustments involving the respondent No. 3 and Dr. B Padu vis-à-vis the places of posting identified by the original orde r of transfer dated 28.9.2010. Transfer, though an incidence of service, the adm inistrative authority concerned is not absolved of its solemn obligation to ensu re that any decision to that effect is indubitably in public interest and, at th e same time, is fair, reasonable and just. No overwhelming administrative exigen cy or public interest is discernible from the records justifying the differentia l treatment. In the above view of the matter, we are inclined to interfere. The order dated 29.10.2010 rejecting the appellant’s representation is set aside. In view of the above determination, the Commissioner/Secretary to the Govt. of Arunacha l Pradesh, Health & Family Welfare Department would take a fresh decision thereo n after a threadbare consideration of the relevant aspects. Needless to say, the decision so taken in accordance with law ought to be supported by reasons. The exercise as ordered should be completed within a period of two weeks from today. The service conditions of the appellant and the respondent No.3 wou ld abide by the decision to be so taken on his (appellant) representation as abo ve. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No cos ts.