The Gauhati High Court has upheld a mutual transfer between two Junior Assistants in Assam’s Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, holding that the employees were governed by the same service rules and therefore could seek mutual transfer under the applicable government memorandum.
A Division Bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Anjan Moni Kalita dismissed the State’s appeal against a Single Judge’s decision that had restored the transfer order.
Background
The two employees were appointed as Junior Assistants on June 1, 2023, following a selection process based on the same advertisement. One was posted in the Directorate of the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, while the other was posted in its District Office. Both held the same Grade Pay.
They later sought mutual transfer under an Office Memorandum dated January 1, 2025. The department approved the request and issued the transfer order on June 7, 2025. The memorandum permitted mutual transfer where employees were covered by the same service rules.
The department subsequently cancelled the transfer on July 12, 2025, stating that the two employees were governed by different rules the Assam Directorate Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1973 and the Assam District Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1967.
The High Court examined the provisions of both sets of service rules. It noted that the 1967 Rules concern ministerial posts in district establishments under the Deputy Commissioner or Sub-Divisional Officer. The Court found that the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department was not included within the branches identified under those rules.
The Bench then considered the 1973 Rules. Under those rules, the Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department is the appointing authority for Senior and Junior Assistants. The Court found that both employees had been appointed by the Director to posts belonging to the same department, including its Directorate and District Office.
The Court recorded its conclusion in these terms:“On account of the clear mandate of the above provisions of the 1967 and 1973 Rules, it is quite clear that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are both covered by the 1973 Rules.”
The Bench also noted that the department had stated in an additional affidavit that there were no specific service rules governing the service conditions of the second respondent.
Finding no basis to treat the second employee as governed by the 1967 Rules, the Division Bench declined to interfere with the Single Judge’s decision.
The Court accordingly dismissed the State’s appeal, leaving the mutual transfer order intact.
Case Details:
Case Title: The Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department Assam v. Mustafizur Rahman and Another
Case Number: WA/111/2026
Judge: Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Anjan Moni Kalita
Decision Date: 8 September 2026
