Background Facts

The respondents were Junior Assistants in the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, Assam. They were appointed on 01.06.2023 pursuant to a selection process based on the same advertisement. The respondent No. 1 was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Directorate of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department. While the respondent No. 2 was appointed as Junior Assistant in the District Office of the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department. They were appointed in the same Grade Pay.

They applied for mutual transfer on the basis of O.M. dated 01.01.2025, which was approved by the Government Department. The necessary consequential order of mutual transfer was passed on 07.06.2025. The O.M. dated 01.01.2025 allowed for mutual transfer, if the employees were covered under the same service rules.

However, the mutual transfer order was cancelled by the Department on 12.07.2025, on the ground that the respondents were governed by two different Service Rules.

Both the Junior Assistants challenged the cancellation of their transfer order by filing a writ petition. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition. It was held that the Director had misinterpreted Clause 3(point-b) of the Office Memorandum dated 01.01.2025 in holding that the mutual transfer of the Junior Assistants was in contravention of the said Office Memorandum.

It was further held by the Single Judge that the cancellation of the mutual transfer order was illegal. The cancellation order was accordingly set aside. Consequently, the mutual transfer order stood revived. Aggrieved by the same, the State filed the appeal before the Gauhati High Court against the Single Judge order.

It was argued by the State that the both Junior Assistants were governed by different Service Rules. Therefore, there could not have been any mutual transfer, in contravention of the O.M. dated 01.01.2025.

It was further submitted by the State that the respondent No. 1 was governed by the Assam Directorate Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1973, while the respondent No. 2 was governed by the Assam District Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1967.

On the other hand, it was argued by the Junior Assistants that there was no infirmity with the transfer order or the decision of the Single Judge.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was observed by the Division Bench that the OM dated 01.01.2025 permits mutual transfer of employees, if they are covered under the same Service Rules. Rule 2(b) of the 1967 Rules provides that the Deputy Commissioner will be the appointing authority in case of appointments to all other ministerial posts in the District Establishment. Further, Rule 2(4) of the 1967 Rules defines District Establishment to mean and include all non-gazetted ministerial staff in the offices of the Deputy Commissioner, Sub-Divisional Officers and Sub-Deputy Collectors of the district. Note to Rule 2(4) of the 1967 Rules provides that the Offices of the Deputy Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Officers shall include branches like Supply, Textile, Election, Revenue, Exercise, Development and other general branches. There is no mention of AH&V Department/branches/wing in the office of the Deputy Commissioner or Sub-Divisional Officer.

It was further noted that the 1967 Rules regulate recruitment and conditions of service of a person, appointed to the Assam Ministerial District Establishment Service. The Rules provide for the appointing authority to be the Deputy Commissioner, in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer.

It was observed by the Bench that both Junior Assistants have been appointed by the Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, Government of Assam to posts in the AH&V Department in the Directorate and the District Office of the AH&V Department.

It was noted that Rule 2 of the 1973 Rules states that the Heads of the Department will be the appointing authority. Schedule I of the 1973 Rules provides that the Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department shall be the appointing authority in respect of the posts of Senior and Junior Assistant.

It was further observed that Rule 2(c) of the 1973 Rules provides that the District Offices will mean and include the different district offices of District Officers and other offices declared as such under the controlling authority of the officer. Further, Rule 1(2) of the 1973 Rules provides that 1973 Rules shall be applicable to the ministerial staff of the offices of the Heads of Departments.

It was held by the Bench that the above provisions of the 1973 Rule clearly provide that the Director of AH&V Department shall be the appointing officer for the respondents, as the posts to which they were appointed belong to the AH&V Department. Accordingly, they were appointed by the Director to posts in the Directorate and the District Office of the AH&V Department.

It was concluded by the Division Bench that both Junior Assistants were covered by the 1973 Rules.

With the aforesaid observations, the decision of the Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : The Director Of Animal Husbandry And Veterinary Department Assam Vs. Mustafizur Rahman And Anr

Case No. : WA/111/2026

Counsel for the Petitioner : Dhrubajyoti Boro, J K Goswami, D J Boro, M. K. Borah

Counsel for the Respondent : M Dutta, L Deka, For Caveator