Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
Y.Dhanalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos.21325, 21541 and 21560 of 2024
Decided on : 03-10-2024
Transfer - Employment - Article 226 - The court discussed the legal framework surrounding employee transfers, emphasizing that transfers are a prerogative of the employer unless proven to be arbitrary or mala fide, thus influencing the decision to dismiss the petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Forest Beat Officers and a Senior Assistant, challenged their transfer orders as illegal and arbitrary, claiming violations of guidelines and lack of transparency.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfers were made on administrative grounds and did not violate any statutory provisions or guidelines, thus upholding the transfers.
Issues: Whether the transfer orders of the petitioners suffer from any illegality warranting judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that transfers are an incident of service and should not be interfered with unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions or evidence of mala fides.
Result: All the Writ Petitions are dismissed at the admission stage.
ORDER :
Since the issue involved in the above writ petitions is the same, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of them through this common order.
2. Petitioners, in W.P.Nos.21325 and 21541 of 2024 are Forest Beat Officers and the petitioner in W.P.No.21560 of 2024 is Senior Assistant.
3. The above writ petitions are filed impugning the transfer proceedings transferring the petitioners, as illegal and arbitrary.
4. Heard Smt.Kavitha Gottipati, Sri A.Rajendra Babu, and Sri G.V.S.Kishore Kumar, learned respective counsel for petitioners, and Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services for Respondents.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the transfers of petitioners were made contrary to the guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024. The transfers are punitive and no transparency was followed. They would also submit that none of the petitioners completed 5 years of terms in the station, yet the petitioners were transferred and no reasons were assigned.
6. Smt.Kavitha Gottipati, the learned counsel would submit that without disclosing the vacancy position, the petitioner was transferred. However, no such pleading was made in the writ affidavit.
7. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services would submit that the petitioners were transferred on administrative exigency. Transfers of the petitioners were made as per G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024. He would further submit that to achieve optimum productivity, efficiency, and accountability in administration by placing the right person at the right place the transfers were made and thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
8. Now, the point for consideration is:
9. Before delving into the facts of the case, let the Court examine the scope of the writ petition regarding the transfer of employees. It is a settled law that an employee holding a transferable post cannot claim any vested right to work at a particular place as the transfer order normally does not affect legal rights. The transfer issue is a prerogative of the employer and normally Courts will not interfere with transfers. A transfer is not only an incidence of service but also an essential condition of the service. Normally courts are chary to interfere with an order of transfer made for administrative reasons. However, if an order of transfer is found to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power; if the transfer is made in connection with departmental proceedings; for extraneous considerations or collateral purposes, the Court can interfere with such transfers.
10. In Gujarat Electricity Board Vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, 1989 SCR (2) 357, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed thus:
11. In Union of India Vs. H.N. Kirtania, 1989 SCR (3) 397 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows:
12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532, observed thus:
Transfers of employees in public service are generally not subject to judicial review unless proven to be arbitrary or in violation of statutory provisions.
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.
Transfers of office bearers must adhere to statutory guidelines; failure to do so constitutes arbitrariness, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Judicial review of employee transfers is limited; transfers are administrative unless proven mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions.
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....
Point of Law : Employment and Service matter - Order of Transfer quashed - Since recommendations to transfer petitioner had been mooted by an extra constitutional authority, who has no role in the fu....
Judicial review of transfer orders is limited; transfers made on administrative grounds are valid unless shown to be arbitrary or malicious.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that transfer of government employees should be made in public interest or administrative exigency, and not based on extraneous considerations or p....
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
