Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
Bodaballa Srinivas and Others – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 12865, 14196, 14284, 14285, 14404, 14417, 14457, 14571, 14574, 14815, 15001, 15055, 15115, 15239, 15254, 16206, 16600, 17061 of 2024
Decided On : 20-08-2024
Transfer - Teachers - A.P. Education Act, 1982 - Sections 78, 99 - The court interpreted the A.P. Teachers (Regulation of Transfers) Rules and the guidelines for employee transfers, emphasizing the necessity of ratification from the competent authority for valid transfer orders.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, teachers and headmasters, challenged the legality of transfer orders kept in abeyance by the government, arguing that the orders were issued without proper ratification and violated existing guidelines.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer orders were issued without the necessary ratification from the competent authority, which is required for the validity of such orders, leading to the dismissal of the writ petitions.
Issues: Whether the transfer orders were valid without ratification from the competent authority and whether the memos issued lacked sufficient reasoning.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that ratification from the competent authority is essential for the validity of transfer orders, and the absence of such ratification rendered the orders illegal.
Result: All the Writ Petitions are Dismissed.
ORDER :
1. Since the issue involved in all the writ petitions is the same, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of them through this common order.
2. Petitioners, Secondary Grade Teachers, School Assistants, and Grade-II Head Masters in different schools filed these writ petitions assailing the proceedings vide Memo No. 2272734/SER.II/A.2/2023 dated 06.06.2024, keeping in abeyance the transfer orders issued vide Govt. Memo No. 2272734/Ser.II/A.2/2023 dated 21.02.2024; Govt. Memo No. 2313567/Ser.II/A.2/2023 dated 21.02.2024; Govt. Memo No. 2272734/Ser.II/A.2/2023 dated 28.02.2024; Govt. Memo No. 2357693/Ser.II/A.2/2023 dated 11.03.2024; Govt. Memo No. 2357693/Ser.II/A.2/2023 dated 14.03.2024; Govt. Memo No. 2360025/Ser.II/A.2/2023 dated 15.03.2024 and Govt. Memo No. 2385662/Ser.II/A.2/2023 dated 16.03.2024, as illegal and arbitrary.
3.........
(b) The petitioners, similarly placed employees, on par with other teachers, requested transfers on spouse/medical/mutual grounds. After calling for the report from the concerned DEOs, the Commissioner of School Education forwarded the same to 1st respondent-Principal Secretary, School Education. Upon considering the same, the 1st respondent issued the aforementioned seven memos, affecting transfers with a condition that the individuals should be relieved on 01.05.2024, as the academic year would be ending by 30.04.2024.
(c) Be that as it may, the 1st respondent issued Memo No. 2272734/SER.II/A.2/2023 dated 12.04.2024, in partial modification of the order issued in the aforementioned seven memos, indicating that the individuals/employees would be relieved after the end of the Model Code of Conduct instead of 01.05.2024. The model code of conduct came into force on 16.03.2024 and the same was lifted on 06.06.2024.
(d) The 1st respondent issued Memo No. 2272734/SER.II/A.2/2023 dated 06.06.2024 keeping in abeyance the transfer orders until further orders. Assailing the said proceedings, several writ petitions were filed. At the request made on behalf of the learned Government Pleader, the writ petition were adjourned from time to time, however, no interim orders were passed.
(e) As the matter stood thus, the 1st respondent issued Memo No. 2272734/SER.II/A.2/ 2023 dated 18.07.2024 in the said memo it was mentioned that the competent authority rejected the transfer orders, issued in the aforementioned seven memos, since the same were issued in violation of existing guidelines and also without approval of the competent authority. The said memo was placed before this Court on 20.07.2024. Impugning the said memo, W.P. Nos. 16600 and 17061 of 2024 were filed. In the other writ petitions interlocutory applications seeking amendment of prayer, impugning the Memo dated 18.07.2024 issued by the 1st respondent. Those applications were ordered.
4.........
Ratification from the competent authority is a prerequisite for the validity of transfer orders in public service, as established by the A.P. Education Act and relevant guidelines.
Ratification from the competent authority is a prerequisite for the validity of transfer orders in public service.
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 orders must comply with statutory guidelines; violations invalidate them, emphasizing the importance of legal procedures in administrative actions.
The G.R. on teacher transfers aligns with the RTE Act by maintaining Pupil-Teacher ratios and does not violate statutory rights of teachers.
Transfer orders in public service must be made based on administrative necessity and public interest, and cannot be influenced by political pressure or arbitrary decisions.
The requirement of the subject should have precedence in transferring teachers from unaided to aided school. Seniority should only be considered when there are multiple teachers in the subject in whi....
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
