Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
Velaga Venkateswaramma – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos.21482 OF 2020, 1393 and 1492 OF 2021 And Writ Petition Nos.1510, 1282, 1461, 1543, 1583, 1573, 1318, 2099, 2279, 2900, 2692 OF 2021
Decided on : 12-02-2021
A.P. Education Act, 1982 – Sections 78 and 99 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 16, 21, 226, 309 – Writ of Mandamus – General Transfers – Writ Petition are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents for non-inclusion of the vacancies filled in the promoted places for general transfers of teachers in all the schools as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and unjust; consequently direct the respondents to include all the vacancies in all the stations for general transfer of teachers including the vacancies in which promotes were posted, in effecting transfers through the Transfer Schedule issued vide proceedings in Rc. – Whereas, the relief claimed in Writ Petition is totally contrary to the relief claimed in other writ petitions – In Writ Petition and batch, the petitioners claimed writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in issuing proceedings R.C. and consequential proceedings issued in R.C. as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to settled law and G.O.Ms. and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and set aside the same with a further direction not to show the promoted places of the petitioners in the ensuing transfer counselling.
Finding of court: Power of the High Court to issue directions, orders or writ in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same is no more res integra. Even though the High Court can entertain a writ petition against any order or direction passed/action taken by the State under Article 226 of the Constitution, it ought not to do so as a matter of course when the aggrieved person could have availed of an effective alternative remedy in the manner prescribed by law. – But the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary; it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. – The very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands that it will ordinarily be exercised subject to certain self-imposed limitations. – Resort that jurisdiction is not intended as an alternative remedy for relief which may be obtained in a suit or other mode prescribed by statute. – Jurisdiction of this Court is limited in view of the self imposed restrictions. – In the said judgment, the Apex Court had considered the scope of Writ of Mandamus while referring the judgments of Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in “Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 409”, held that there is no conflict of opinion in “A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602” or in “Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 584” with the principle set down in “Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, AIR 1963 SC 996”. – Be it noted, when there is a statutory command by the legislation as regards limitation and there is the postulate that delay can be condoned for a further period not exceeding sixty days, needless to say, it is based on certain underlined, fundamental, general issues of public policy as has been held in “Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India” – Jurisdiction of this Court to issue a writ of Mandamus is limited and such direction can be issued only in case where the petitioner is able to establish the existence of legal right and right to compel the statutory authorities to enforce the same by way of writ of Mandamus. – Petitioners miserably failed to establish the basic requirements to issue a writ of Mandamus. – On this ground, the petitioners are disentitled to claim relief.
Result: Petition Dismissed
ORDER :
1. Writ Petition Nos. 21482 of 2020, 1393 and 1492 of 2021 are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents for non-inclusion of the vacancies filled in the promoted places for general transfers of teachers in all the schools as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and unjust; consequently direct the respondents to include all the vacancies in all the stations for general transfer of teachers including the vacancies in which promotes were posted, in effecting transfers through the Transfer Schedule issued vide proceedings in Rc.No.13029/11/2020-EST 3-CSE, dated 02.11.2020. Whereas, the relief claimed in Writ Petition Nos.1510, 1282, 1461, 1543, 1583, 1573, 1318, 2099, 2279, 2900, 2692 of 2021 is totally contrary to the relief claimed in other writ petitions Nos. 21482 of 2020, 1393 and 1492 of 2021. In Writ Petition 1510 of 2021 and batch, the petitioners claimed writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in issuing proceedings R.C.No.13029/61/2020-EST 3 dated 08.01.2021 and consequential proceedings issued in R.C.No.13029/11/2020-EST 3 dated 14.01.2021 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to settled law and G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 12.10.2020 and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and set aside the same with a further direction not to show the promoted places of the petitioners in the ensuing transfer counselling.
2. The relief claimed in Writ Petition Nos. 21482 of 2020, 1393 and 1492 of 2021 is one and the same, whereas the relief claimed in writ petition Nos.1510, 1282, 1461, 1543, 1583, 1573, 1318, 2099, 2279, 2900, 2692 of 2021 is almost opposing the claim in the other three writ petitions. Therefore, the petitioners in writ petition Nos.21482 of 2020, 1393 and 1492 of 2021 as one batch claiming one relief and the petitioners in writ petition Nos.1510, 1282, 1461, 1543, 1583, 1573, 1318, 2099, 2279, 2900, 2692 of 2021 are opposing their claim as the proceedings in the impugned writ petition No.1510 of 2021 and batch were issued in pursuance of the interim order issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.21482 of 2020.
3. In view of the identity of the issue, W.P.No.21482 of 2020 is taken as leading case for deciding the real controversy between the parties. The factual matrix is as follows:
4. As per G.O.Ms.No. 15 Education (SE-Ser.II) Department dated 26.01.2009, respondent No.1 has issued a notification in exercise of the powers conferred by section 78 and 99 of A.P. Education Act, 1982 and under Article 309 of Constitution of India by framing certain Rules for promotion. As per Rule 2, the appointing authority shall draw panels of eligible School Assistants for appointment by transfer to the post of Head Master Grade-II and the list of SGTs and equivalent categories for promotion to the post of School Assistants and equivalent categories every year duly assessing the 1st vacancies of the respective categories from September to 31st August of succeeding year, arising due to retirement, promotion etc. 1st September of the year reckoned as qualifying date to determine the eligibility of the candidates. Rule 13 deals with criteria for transfer, it discloses that the completion of 8 years service shall be counted for the service rendered in a school prior and after upgradation in respect of upgraded and bifurcat
Point of law: An order of transfer of an employee is a part of the service conditions and such order of transfer is not required to be interfered with lightly by a court of law in exercise of its dis....
The G.R. on teacher transfers aligns with the RTE Act by maintaining Pupil-Teacher ratios and does not violate statutory rights of teachers.
Transfers of government teachers must comply with established administrative guidelines to ensure fairness and avoid arbitrary decisions.
The court affirmed that transfer orders are administrative decisions and should not be interfered with unless proven to be arbitrary or in violation of statutory provisions.
The transfer order was issued in violation of the statutory rule requiring a no objection certificate from the Head of the institution of the parent school and non-consideration of the effect of the ....
Transfer policy guidelines do not confer legally enforceable rights unless there is a violation of statutory rules or mala fide.
Point of Law : Executive action to escape wrath of Art. 14 has to be fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory, transparent, non-capricious, unbiased, without favouritism, in pursuit of appointment and eq....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
