SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1975 Supreme(AP) 22

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.SAMBASIVA RAO, SHIV SHANKAR
Badugu Venkateswarlu - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Decided On : 02-04-75

Administrative instructions do not confer a legal right on an employee to stay in a particular station for a specific duration, and individual convenience must yield to administrative requirements.

Headnote:

Transfer - Employee Rights - The court held that while administrative instructions may guide transfers, they do not create a legal right for an employee to stay in a particular station for a specific duration, and administrative requirements take precedence over individual convenience.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant challenged the legality of his transfer, arguing that it was illegal in the midst of an academic year and occurred within five months of his recent transfer.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the writ appeal, stating that administrative instructions do not confer a legal right on an employee to stay in a particular station for a specific duration, and individual convenience must yield to administrative requirements.

Issues: Challenge to transfer legality based on timing and frequency.

Ratio Decidendi: Administrative instructions do not create a legal right for an employee to stay in a particular station for a specific duration, and individual convenience must yield to administrative requirements.

Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed by the court.

SAMBASIOA RAO, A. G. J, J.

( 1 ) OUR learned brother dismissed the writ petition of the appellant even at the admission stage itself. In it, the petitioner challenged the legality of his transfer on the ground that it was illegal in the midst of an academic year, and on the further ground that he was transferred only within five months after his recent transfer.

( 2 ) IT is tiue that there are certain G. Os. issued bv the Government that, as far as possible, transfers should not be made during an academic year, and that officers should be kept in their posts for three years. But they are subject to the exigencies of administration and these administrative instructions cannot create a right in an employee to say that he cannot be transferred within three years or in the midst of an academic year. There is no rule which has got the force of law which confers any right on an employee to stay in any particular station for three years, or during an entire academic year. His convenience, has no doubt, to be taken into consideration by the appropriate authority, but that must always yield to the administrative requirement. So we cannot hold that the appellant has acquired any right for staying in this place during the course of an academic year. If any particular inconvenience has been caused, he can make necessary representation to the appropriate authority. That is what our learned brother also has observed.

( 3 ) WE, therefore, agree with our learned brother and dismiss the writ appeal. Writ Appeal dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top