Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
V Yanadi - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others - Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 21323/2024
Decided On : 13-02-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Transfer of employee - The petitioner challenged the transfer order as illegal and arbitrary, citing violations of G.O.Ms.No.75 and G.O.Ms.No.170 regarding transfer guidelines - The petitioner, an office bearer, was exempt from transfer under the guidelines - The court found the transfer violated statutory guidelines and amounted to arbitrariness. (Paras 8, 20, 25)
(B) Judicial Review - The scope of judicial review in transfer matters is limited; courts will not interfere unless there is proof of arbitrariness or malafides. (Paras 15, 21)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Deputy Assistant Commissioner, was transferred without following proper guidelines, despite being an office bearer of the association, which should have exempted him from such action. (Paras 1, 2, 25)
Findings of Court:
The transfer order was set aside due to violation of guidelines, constituting arbitrary action against the petitioner. (Paras 28)
Issues: The main issue was whether the transfer was legally sustainable given the guidelines for transfers and the petitioner's status as an office bearer. (Paras 8, 20)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the transfer violated established guidelines, which have statutory force, and thus constituted arbitrary action violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (Paras 20, 24, 25)
Result: Writ Petition allowed, transfer order set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judicial review scope limited (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 2. transfer violated guidelines (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 3. writ petition allowed (Para 28) |
ORDER :
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
The above writ petition is filed impugning the proceedings impugning the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide CCST’S Ref.No.DXZ(1)/618/2024 dated 20.09.2024 (Ex.P1), transferring the petitioner, Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST) from the office of Assistant Commissioner (ST), Nellore-III Circle, Nellore Division to the office of Assistant Commissioner (ST), Narasaraopeta Circle, Guntur-II Division, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.75 Finance (HR.I-PLG. & POLICY) Department, dated 17.08.2024 & G.O.Ms.No.170 Revenue (Commercial Taxes) Department dated 22.08.2024.
2. a) In the affidavit, it was pleaded that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer on 30.10.2009 and later promoted as Deputy Assistant Commissioner(ST) on 02.09.2022 and posted to the office of Assistant Commissioner (ST), Nellore-III Circle, Nellore Division. The petitioner submitted a joining report on 05.09.2022. The petitioner was elected as a Secretary of A.P. Commercial Tax Services Association, Vijayawada on 15.03.2022. The petitioner has completed 1 year and 10 months at Nellore-III Circle. The General Administration Department has issued Circular Memo No.GAD01- SW0SERA/13/2024-SW, dated 22.08.2024. In pursuance of the said circular, A.P. Commercial Tax Services Association forwarded the information regarding office bearers and details of the state office bearers.
b) Be that at it may, by the proceedings impugned (Ex.P1) in the writ petition, the petitioner was transferred. After issuance of the transfer order (Ex.P1) the petitioner made a representation dated 21.09.2024, however the same was not considered. Hence, the writ petition.
3. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 2nd respondent. it was contended, interalia, that the petitioner completed 5 years of service in different cadres in Nellore Town. The petitioner’s candidature is squarely covered as per guidelines. The list of bearers was not furnished to the Head of Department through the General Administration Department. The service associations submitted a list of office bearers to the Secretary to the Government, Services & HRM Department, Velagapudi. The said list was not forwarded to the HODs and eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
4. An interim order was granted on 25.09.2024 and the same was extended from time to time.
5. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner filed I.A.No.3 of 2024 to direct respondents 2 and 3 to pay the salary from 22.09.2024 onwards. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended that the petitioner has not been relieved in pursuance of the transfer order impugned (Ex.P1) and in fact, has been continuing at the office of the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Nellore-III Circle, Nellore Division.
6. Heard Smt.Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services for respondents.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services for respondents reiterated the contentions as per the averments made in the affidavit and counter affidavit respectively.
8. Now, the point for consideration is:
Whether the transfer of petitioner vide CCST’S Ref.No.DXZ(1)/618/2024 dated 20.09.2024 (Ex.P1) is legally sustainable?
9. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.75 Finance (HR.I-PLG. & POLICY) Department, dated 17.08.2024 framing guidelines for transfers and postings of employees. In pursuance of the said G.O., the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.170 Revenue (Commercial Taxes) Department dated 22.08.2024 prescribing guidelines/instructions, while lifting the ban on transfers.
10. Para No.I of the G.O.Ms.No.170 dated 22.08.2024 deals with principles for transfers and postings. Para
Transfer orders must adhere to established guidelines; failure to do so constitutes arbitrariness and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
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 transfer orders is limited; transfers made on administrative grounds are valid unless shown to be arbitrary or malicious.
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 in public service can be made on administrative grounds without detailed justification, provided they do not violate statutory rules or are made in bad faith.
Judicial review of administrative transfers is limited; transfers based on administrative grounds are generally upheld unless shown to be arbitrary or in violation of statutory rules.
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 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....
Legal malice is insufficient to challenge a transfer order unless clear procedural violations or malafide intentions can be proven.
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
