Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
G.NARENDAR, NYAPATHY VIJAY, JJ.
The Special Chief Secretary and Others – Appellants
Versus
Dr Anapalli Appa Rao and Others – Respondents
Writ Appeal No.750 of 2023
Decided on : 10-05-2024
Transfer - Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries - Andhra Pradesh State Animal Husbandry Service Rules, 1996, Rule 3 - The court discussed the eligibility criteria for the post of Additional Director (AH) and the authority competent to make appointments. It also considered the amendment to Rule 3, which designated the Director of Animal Husbandry as the competent authority for appointments. The court held that the transfer of the petitioner was not vitiated by malice and that the eligibility criteria were fixed by the government and not subject to judicial review.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Director (Animal Husbandry), sought a transfer to SMILE, Visakhapatnam due to his son's medical condition. The government approved the transfer, but the 2nd respondent posted a junior officer instead. The petitioner filed a writ petition alleging mala fides and favoritism.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer was not vitiated by malice and that the eligibility criteria for the post were fixed by the government. It held that the petitioner's plea for transfer based on medical emergency could be considered by the authorities within 15 days.
Issues: The issues revolved around the authority to make appointments, the eligibility criteria for the post, and the alleged mala fides in the transfer decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the eligibility criteria for the post were fixed by the government and not subject to judicial review. It also emphasized that the transfer decision was an incidence of service and not open to demand by a government servant.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and restored the order of transferring the 3rd respondent. It directed the 1st and 2nd respondents to consider the petitioner's plea for transfer based on medical emergency within 15 days.
JUDGMENT:
G.NARENDAR, J.
Heard Sri G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, Learned G P (S-I) for the appellants and Sri M.Kantha Rao, Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner.
2. The appellants are the Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries, Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Director of the said department. The 1st Respondent is the Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent is the Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry, SMILE, Visakhapatnam Campus.
3. The parties are referred to by their nomenclature before the learned Single Judge for the sake of brevity and convenience.
4. It is the case of the Petitioner that the transfer proceedings bearing Roc.No.2633/BI/2020, dated 16.06.2021, is contrary to G.O.Rt.No.151, AH, DD & F (AH.I) Dept., dated 17.06.2021, issued by the 1st respondent.
5. The facts in a nutshell are that the Petitioner while discharging duties as Assistant Director (Animal Husbandry) was deputed to SVVU Super Speciality Veterinary Hospital, Visakhapatnam, which centre is under the control of Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University, Tirupati, with effect from 25.02.2016 vide proceedings dated 24.12.2015. On completion of his foreign service in the deputed department, he was repatriated to parent department on 24.02.2021 and he was directed to appear before the Director, Animal Husbandry Development Department. That on 24.02.2021, the petitioner made a request to the 2nd respondent to post him as Assistant Director at SMILE (State Management Institute of Livestock Entrepreneurship) in place of Dr. M.Chandra Sekhar, who had been promoted as Deputy Director (AH) from the post of the Assistant Director. That the request for transfer was made on the ground that the son of the petitioner was availing treatment for Multiple Sclerosis at KGH Hospital, Visakhapatnam. The 2nd respondent, on receipt of the representation, addressed a letter to the Government on 15.06.2021 and the Government vide Memo dated 10.06.2021 sent a proposal for approval to the 2nd respondent to post the petitioner as Assistant Director, SMILE and issued appropriate instructions to the 2nd respondent for examination. That, thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.151, AH, DD & F (AH.I) Dept., dated 16.06.2021 posting the petitioner as Assistant Director (AH), SMILE, Visakhapatnam in the existing vacancy, which has arisen out of the promotion to one Dr. M.Chandra Sekhar. That, while things stood thus, the 2nd respondent issued an order posting the 3rd respondent as an Assistant Director (AH), SMILE, Visakhapatnam vide proceedings dated 16.06.2021. That the 3rd respondent took charge of the same. Aggrieved by the proceedings posting the 3rd respondent as Assistant Director (AH), SMILE, the writ petition came to be filed.
6. The writ petition was canvassed on the ground that the order posting the 3rd respondent is vitiated by mala fides and is a clear case of misfeasance. That the 2nd respondent has exercised power not vested in him and that the 2nd respondent having recommended the case to the Government and the Government having approved directed the posting of the petitioner to the said office and the action of the 2nd respondent in the interregnum was a colourable exercise of power. That the petitioner is a senior to the 3rd respondent and despite the said fact, the impugned order of posting came to be passed and it is a clear case of scepticism/favouritism. That the order is also bad for want of authority as the power to transfer is vested in the Government alone.
7. The said writ petition came to be vehemently resisted by the appellants/respondents on multiple grounds before the learned Single Judge. It was contended that the eligibility criteria stipulated for the post of Additional Director (AH), SMILE stipulates that the aspirant must possess a P.G. degree in Veterinary Science and the Officers ought to have undergone TOT training. That stipulation came about on account of the Government Memo No.3728/AH.III/ 1/2005-2, dated 22.09.200
. The eligibility criteria for a government post are fixed by the government and not subject to judicial review. The transfer of a government servant is an incidence of service and not open to demand....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that appointments must comply with the relevant rules and government orders, and appointing authorities must act within their jurisdiction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of transfer and posting should be exercised honestly, bona fide, and reasonably, based on administrative exigency and public interes....
Point of Law : Transfer of a public servant made on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless there are strong and pressing grounds rendering the transfer orde....
Mutual transfer of employees is valid if both are governed by the same service rules, irrespective of their postings, as established under the Directorate Service Rules, 1973.
Legal malice is insufficient to challenge a transfer order unless clear procedural violations or malafide intentions can be proven.
Transfer orders must align with public interest and established norms; courts can intervene if government action is arbitrary.
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
