NGILYANG TACHANG Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (AT: ITANAGAR)
STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
NELSON SAILO,J. -
(1.) Heard Mr. N. Tagia, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. K. Tari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also head Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the respondents No.1 to 5 and Mr. N. Rama, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6.
(2.) Facts of the case in brief may be noticed at the outset, the petitioner is a Range Forest Officer (RFO) under Hapoli Forest Division in the Lower Subansiri District of the State. Vide order dated 15.07.2016, the private respondent No. 6 who is also a RFO was transferred from Tale Wildlife Range under Hapoli Forest Division to the establishment of the Director, Arunachal Pradesh Forest Training Institute(APFTI) at Roing. However, the respondent No. 6 did not join his place of transfer and posting but continued to remain at Tale Wildlife Range on being retained there. Again in the year 2017, vide order dated 24.10.2017, the respondent No. 6 was retained at Tale Wildlife Sanctuary Range, Pange till March 2018. By the same transfer order, the petitioner was transferred from Hapoli Range under Hapoli Forest Division to Tale Wild Life Sanctuary Range, Pange of the same Division. However, he was asked to take the charge only after March 2018. After the stipulated time was over, the petitioner on 12.04.2018 submitted an application to the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) of Hapoli Forest Division informing the said authority that he may be allowed to take the charge at Tale Wildlife Range in terms of the transfer order dated 24.10.2017. The respondent was thereafter, released from the Hapoli Division vide order dated 30.06.2018, to enable him to report from his duty at the establishment of the Director of Arunachal Pradesh Forest Training Institute(APFTI) at Roing. Despite the said release to the surprise of the petitioner the respondent No. 6 was further retained at Tale Wildlife Sanctuary Range vide the impugned order dated 3.7.2018. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent No. 2 on 09.07.2018, expressing his grievance on the retention of the respondent No. 6 at Tale Wildlife Sanctuary Range and requested that his retention be reconsidered. Thereafter, the petitioner initiated the present writ petition.
(3.) Mr. N. Tagia, learned Sr. counsel submits that the impugned retention order dated 03.07.2018 has not been issued in public interest but in fact it has been issued at the behest of the private respondent on irrelevant grounds i.e. his children's education, old aged ailing mother and completion of ongoing project. The learned Sr. counsel submits that the Tale Wildlife Sanctuary Range at Pange is almost 35km away from Hapoli town and one has to walk for about 1 to 2 hours duration from last motorable road to reach the place and as such, the treatment of his ailing mother and hampering of his children's education as contented by the respondent No. 6 cannot be accepted under the facts and circumstance of the case. The petitioner being a master's degree holder in the field concerned is well competent to smoothly and successfully complete the ongoing project and therefore, the same also cannot be the ground for retaining the respondent No. 6 at Tale Wildlife Range.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.