Back
2014 Supreme(AP) 1505
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
R. Kantha Rao, J.
Syed Sayeeduddin Tanveer - Appellants
Vs.
Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. – Respondent
WVMP No. 2202, 2203, 2200, 2201 of 2013 in WPMP No. 21253, 21255, 21309, 21324 of 2013 in W.P. No. 17476, 17477, 17527, 17538 of 2013.
Decided On : 28.10.2014
For The Appellant : K.S. Murthy
For The Respondents: G.P.
Headnote:
Employment and Service matter – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Interim orders – Transferring and Retransferring of post – Discharge duties – Seeking directions to declaring the action of the respondents in transferring the petitioners from Engineering College to Schools as arbitrary, illegal and to direct the respondents to take back petitioners to their original posts petitioners filed the miscellaneous petitions seeking interim relief in nature of direction to the respondents to permit them to discharge duties in the Engineering College from academic year 2013-14 by suspending the proceedings issued in the year 2011 and 2012 respectively by the respondents where under the petitioners were transferred from the Engineering College to Schools learned single Judge of this Court by a common order dated 20.06.2013 granted interim relief prayed for suspending operation of the respective orders issued by the 3rd respondent and directing the respondents 2, 3, 4 and 5 to allow the petitioners to function as Lab Supervisors and Lab Technicians Grade-I, as the case may be in the 4th respondent college with effect, in substance, directing the respondents to retransfer the petitioners to the original posts – Whether the interim order which according to the respondents in the nature of granting of the main relief itself can be sustained or liable to be vacated – Held, As per the ratio laid down in Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra (supra) to grant an interim relief in the nature of main relief, a strong prima facie case has to be made out, the court has to see the balance of convenience and also whether irreparable injury would be caused if the relief is refused to the party applying for the same. Since the transfers were effected in the year 2011, the earlier writ petitions were dismissed on merits in 2011 and as the petitioners withdrew the writ appeals stating that they would pursue the remedies before the authorities, and lost before the authorities I do not think that they have made out any strong prima facie case in their favour to grant interim relief in the nature of main relief in the writ petitions filed in the year 2013. It is not the case where the petitioners are removed or discharged. If they satisfy this Court in the main writ petitions about infringement of their right, they can as well be transferred to their original posts. It is certainly not a case where if the petitioners are not retransferred, it would result in irreparable loss to them. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the interim order ought not to have granted directing retransfer the petitioners to their original posts as an interim measure since it is nothing but granting the main relief in the writ petitions – Petitions are allowed
R. Kantha Rao, J.
1. Since common issue is involved in all these miscellaneous petitions, they are disposed of by a common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the writ petitions.
3. The writ petitions four in number are filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in transferring the petitioners from Engineering College to Schools as arbitrary, illegal and to direct the respondents to take back the petitioners to their original posts.
4. The petitioners filed the miscellaneous petitions seeking interim relief in the nature of the direction to the respondents to permit them to discharge duties in the Engineering College from the academic year 2013-14 by suspending the proceedings issued in the year 2011 and 2012 respectively by the respondents whereunder the petitioners were transferred from the Engineering College to Schools.
5. The learned single Judge of this Court by a common order dated 20.06.2013 granted interim relief prayed for suspending operation of the respective orders issued by the 3rd respondent and directing the respondents 2, 3, 4 and 5 to allow the petitioners to function as Lab Supervisors and Lab Technicians Grade-I, as the case may be in the 4th respondent college with effect from 24.06.2013, in substance, directing the respondents to retransfer the petitioners to the original posts. The learned single Judge passed the order ex parte. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents/Vacate Stay petitioners filed appeals in W.A. Nos. 924, 928, 929 and 930 of 2013 and the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said appeals with a direction to file vacate stay petitions before the learned single Judge, and pursuant to the said directions, the respondents/vacate stay petitioners filed these vacate stay miscellaneous petitions.
6. The brief facts essential for considering the present vacate stay miscellaneous petitions may be stated as follows:
"The petitioners are the Lab Supervisors and Lab Technicians in the College of Engineering and Technology run by the 3rd respondent Society. They were transferred to the School run by the 4th respondent Society by proceedings separately issued in the year 2011 to each of the petitioners. The grievance of the petitioners is that the posts to which they were transferred are below in rank to the posts which they were holding earlier and by virtue of the impugned transfers' they were reduced in rank and thus, the transfers are wholly unjustifiable and illegal and therefore, they filed the writ petitions" seeking indulgence of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They submitted in their respective affidavits that by virtue of Sec. 79(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") an order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of any teaching or member or non-teaching staff, employed in any private educational institution, cannot be passed except holding an enquiry, and also without obtaining prior approval from the competent authority. According to the petitioners, though the aforesaid transfers were not as a result of any disciplinary action initiated against them, virtually by means of the said transfers, they were reduced in rank and therefore, they have to be retransferred to their original posts. The learned single Judge acceded to the submissions made by the petitioners and granted the interim order as prayed for."
7. The version of the respondents 3 to 5, as disclosed from the counter affidavit filed by them, is that the transfer orders were passed in the year 2011; the petitioners filed W.P. Nos. 15302, 15303, 15304 and 15305 of 2011 before this Court and the same were disposed of on merits, and the learned single Judge of this Court on a detailed consideration of rival submissions, vide common order dated 12.07.2011 dismissed the writ petitions holding that the transfer order
