Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V. Sujatha, J.
T. Sudarshan Reddy - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No.14274 of 2019
Decided On : 18-10-2022
TRANSFER OF VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER - MODIFICATION OF TRANSFER ORDERS - LEGALITY - PRINCIPLE OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL - APPLICABILITY - COURT'S INTERFERENCE - PARAMETERS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Village Revenue Officer, was transferred from Kurnool Town Cluster II to Kurnool Town Cluster III on mutual basis. However, the transfer order was partially modified, transferring him to Devanakonda-II Cluster on administrative grounds. The petitioner challenged the revised transfer order, contending that it was illegal and arbitrary, and that the principle of promissory estoppel applied.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the transfer of an employee is within the prerogative power of the employer, who can withdraw, alter or modify any previous order of transfer. The court will not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless it is shown clearly as mala fide or infraction of any professed norms or principles enshrined by the Rules.
Issues: 1. Whether the revised transfer order was illegal and arbitrary? 2. Whether the principle of promissory estoppel applied to the case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the revised transfer order was not illegal or arbitrary, as it was issued on administrative grounds and in accordance with the relevant guidelines. 2. The court held that the principle of promissory estoppel did not apply to the case, as the petitioner had not acted in reliance on the initial transfer order by joining the new station.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent authorities to permit him to join duty in the place where he was transferred or in any other place.
ORDER :
1. The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is working as Village Revenue Officer with effect from 10.12.2010. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.45 Finance (HR-I-Plg & Policy) Department, dated 24.06.2019 lifting the ban on transfers from 25.06.2019 to 05.07.2019, which was extended up to 10.07.2019 vide G.O.Ms.No.59, dated 04.07.2019. Consequent upon relaxation of ban on transfers, the petitioner, along with one A. Lakshmi Kanth Reddy, who was working as Village Revenue Officer, Cluster III, Kurnool Town, had applied for transfer on mutual basis, which is permissible under the transfer guidelines. Considering the said application, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings in Rc.No.A4/752/2019, dated 10.07.2019 transferring and posting certain Village Revenue Officers on Administrative grounds, wherein the petitioner was shown at S.No.71 transferring him from Kurnool Town II, Cluster, Kurnool to Kurnool Town III Cluster, Kurnool. Accordingly, the petitioner reported to duty on 12.07.2019. The further case of the petitioner is that his wife Smt. D. Rajeswaramma, was working as Post Graduate Teacher in Zoology, A.P. Model School, Jupali Bungalow, Kurnool and his case is squarely covered under spouse case as envisaged in transfer guidelines. Strangely, the 3rd respondent issue proceedings in Rc.No.A4/752/2019, dated 10.07.2019, partially modifying the earlier orders of transfer, which was communicated through Whatsapp on 20.07.2019 after the petitioner joined in Kurnool Town III Cluster Kurnool in pursuance of initial transfer orders dated 10.07.2017. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent issued the impugned order partially modifying the earlier transfers to accommodate the 4th respondent who was appointed under compassionate grounds which is nothing but arbitrary, unjust and contrary to guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.45, dated 24.06.2019.
3. The 3rd respondent filed his counter denying the averments made in the writ petition and contended that the G.O.Ms.No.45 Fin (HRI.Plg & Policy) Department, dated 24.06.2019 was issued relaxing ban on transfer of employees up to 05.07.2019 and as per Para 3 (i), (ii) and (iii) of the said G.O., the principles for transfers and postings are that the transfer of employees shall be effected “on request” and on administrative grounds; employees who completed five years at a station shall be invariably transferred; and service in all cadres at a station shall be counted while calculating the period of stay. Station means place (City, Town, Village) of actual working for the purpose of transfers and not office or institution. Subsequently, the relaxation of ban on transfer of employees was extended up to 10.07.2019 vide G.O.Ms.No.59 Fin (HRI-Plg. & Policy) Department, dated 04.07.2019.
4. It is further stated that the petitioner, who was working as Village Revenue Officer, Kurnool Town-II Cluster, Kurnool, was transferred and posted as Village Revenue Officer, Kurnool Town III Cluster vide proceedings in Rc.A4/7
The transfer of an employee is within the prerogative power of the employer, who can withdraw, alter or modify any previous order of transfer. The court will not interfere under Article 226 of the Co....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer of a government employee should be made in public interest and for administrative reasons, and frequent transfers without justifi....
The court emphasized that transfer orders made in public interest and for administrative reasons should not be interfered with unless they violate any mandatory statutory rule or are made on the grou....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the issue of transfer is a prerogative of the employer, and the courts cannot interfere with transfer orders made on administrative grounds un....
Courts cannot interfere with transfer orders unless shown to be an outcome of malafide exercise or in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting such transfer.
Point of law: Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, ....
Transfer orders in public service are valid unless proven mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions.
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
