APHC010605802024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3331]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 1062/2025 Between:

B Uma Shankar ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S V BHARATHA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. B JAYA PRABHAKARA RAO (SC for APCO)

The Court made the following:

ORDER

The above writ petition is filed impugning the proceedings issued by the 2^nd respondent vide Ref.No.APCO/CO/Ad.I/BUS.AMO/MO/SPO/RJY/TRF/KOLK/24 dated

11.11.2024 (Ex.P1), transferring the petitioner.

2. Petitioner, Assistant Marketing Officer/MO (FAC)/SPO, Rajahmundry, working in Andhra Pradesh State Handloom Weavers’

Cooperative Society Limited, has been transferred and posted as AMO/Manager, Cuttack Showroom, Srikakulam Division.

3. Heard Smt.S.V.Bharatha Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prabhakar, learned standing counsel for respondents

2 to 5.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that before issuing the proceedings impugned, the petitioner was suspended vide Ref.No.APCO/CO/Admin.II/Deficits/BUS,DMO(FAC)/Suspension/23, dated 11.04.2023 (Ex.P3). Later, the petitioner was reinstated vide Ref.No.APCO/CO/Admin.II/Deficits/BUS,DMO(FAC)/Suspension/Rein stated/23, dated 28.06.2023 (Ex.P5) and posted as Marketing Officer (FAC), Livery Division, Mangalagiri. A charge memo vide Ref.No.APCO/CO/Admin.I/BUS,DMO(FAC),RJY/Charges/23, dated 12.10.2023 (Ex.P6) was issued, for which the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 20.10.2023 (Ex.P7). Pending enquiry, by the proceedings, impugned, the petitioner was transferred, which is punitive.

5. Learned standing counsel for respondents 2 to 5 would submit that the transfer of the petitioner is on administrative grounds and not punitive. He would also submit that though the petitioner pleaded punitive, no such instances are mentioned in the affidavit and he eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the transfer order, impugned in the writ petition, suffers from any illegality warranting interference by this Court to exercise judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?

7. Before delving into the facts of the case, let the Court examine the scope of this court’s jurisdiction qua 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. The transfer of an employee neither affects the service conditions nor 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.

8. In Gujarat Electricity Board Vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, 1989 SCR (2) 357, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed thus:

"Transfer of a Government servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to the another is an incident of service. No Government servant or employee of public undertaking has legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place to other is generally a condition of service and the employee has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration."

9. In Union of India Vs. H.N. Kirtania, 1989 SCR (3) 397 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows:

“Transfer of a public servant made on administrative groun