SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 9391

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J
Dr. N. Reddy Bhaskar Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WP NO: 15351 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri P V Krishnaiah
For the Respondents: GP FOR MEDICAL AND HEALTH, GP FOR FINANCE

The court ruled that a public servant's transfer must be justified by administrative reasons, especially when exemptions are claimed due to their association role.

Headnote:(A) Transfer of Public Servants - Clause 5(v)(a) of General Guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.23 - Petitioner is an office bearer of Government Employees Association and is entitled to exemption from transfer under specified guidelines. Court suspended transfer orders due to lack of administrative justification by respondents. (Paras 1, 3, 4)

(B) Interim Relief - Court found prima facie opinion that the respondents failed to provide valid reasons for transferring petitioner, thus granting interim suspension of transfer order pending further proceedings.

Facts of the case:
Petitioner, a Civil Surgeon, challenged his transfer under disputed Government Order citing exemption entitled due to his position in the Andhra Pradesh Government Employees Association.

Findings of Court:
Court ordered suspension of the transfer pending justification as per administrative grounds not fulfilled by the respondents.

Issues: Main question centered on the applicability of the exemption clause regarding transfer of government employees and administrative criteria for such transfers.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed the necessity for administrative reasons to be provided for transfer orders, particularly when exemption clauses apply, emphasizing the rights of office bearers in government associations.

Result: Interim suspension of the transfer was granted.

Table of Content
1. challenging transfer order based on exemption clause. (Para 1)
2. petitioner's argument against transfer. (Para 2)
3. court's observation on administrative justification. (Para 3)

Petition under section' 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in -'supporf of the petI|tiOn, the High Court may be Pleased tO Suspend the operation Of the impugned GO Rt.No.406, Health, Medical & Family Welfare Department, dated 19.06.2025 issued by the lst 'Respondent herein, pending disposal of WP No.15351 of 2025, on the file of the High Court.

The court while directing issue of notice to the Respondents herein t6 show cause as to why this applicatI'On Should not be complied With, made the following order.(The receipt of this order will be deemed to be the receipt of notice in the case). The Court made the following ORDER:

£fpeti1:ioner js presen'tly` working as Civl-I Surgeon (SpecjalI-St), i|-

General Medic[Ine, at Area Hospital, Rayachoti, is now transferred to Area HospitalJ Rajampeta, by impugned proceedings in G.O. Rt.No.406, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (D1) Department, da1:ed 19.06.2025. Petitioner is holding position of .Organizing Secretary of Andhra Pradesh, Jy Government Employees A§so_9ia`tiOn, Rayachotj, therefore, he is not susceptible for transferG``i.n vieW`-Of the exemption granteCl under clause 5t (v) (a) of General Guidel`ine.s issued under G.O.Ms.No.23, Finance (HR.I=

PLC. & Policy) Department, dated 15.05.2025.

2. Learned counsel for`±he petjtIIoner subm]-ts that despite there, being clear exemption, petI-tiOner has been transferred which is contrary ±o aforesaid clause.

st __ _ -_ . _ .I.,.J`

|~*'.~` \

3. Pr,-ma fac,-e, thl-s c6upr€ ~f'inds that as petitioner appears to be an •{=c`-? €.< =

office bearer, he is entitledioF exemption and even o1:herwise though S.. i Sub-clause 5(v)(d) provid-ed ±t`nat €ia.nsfer proceedings can be affected on`J i. i\`

administrative grounds+6vSri* ivjth respect to above referred category,'

r\-espondents should proivic.+ !.x`ae'_.l'

special reasons for doing sol I E= I

4. Since the same are lacking in the present case, there Shall be an interim suspension of the-I impugned proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.406, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (D1) Department, dated 19.06.2025, to the extent of petitioner and respondents are directed to continue the petitioner in the present station;I pending further orders."

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top