THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL No.818 of 2025

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri B.Sravan Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and perused the record.

Factual Matrix of the case

2. The background of this case involves a service dispute of the appellant/writ petitioner concerning a mutual transfer. The appellant was originally in Zone-VI (Charminar) and was allotted to Zone-VII (Jogulamba), Wanaparthy District on 08.01.2022. Further, in March 2022, the appellant and respondent No.9 applied for mutual transfer, whereby the appellant sought a transfer to Zone-VI and respondent No.9 sought a transfer to Zone-VII. The appellant submitted her undertaking on 22.06.2022, however, respondent No.9 did not submit his undertaking in time.

Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.416 on

11.07.2022, effecting over 100 mutual transfers, excluding the appellant and respondent No.9 on the ground that respondent No.9 had not submitted his undertaking, and accordingly their requests were deemed "withdrawn".

It was alleged by the appellant that respondent No.9 had approached a local MLA and the then Health Minister, and obtained a recommendation letter dated 26.08.2022 and an endorsement dated 27.08.2022, by which on 19.09.2022 respondent No.5 issued Memo No.8462/G/2022-1 directing the Director of Public Health to re-examine the issue of mutual transfer. The Government on 11.08.2023 has issued Memo No.8462/G/2022-2 ordering the mutual transfer.

The appellant challenged the aforesaid Memo vide I.A.No.01 of 2024 in W.P.No.1360 of 2024 arguing it was arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. However, at the stage of admission on 12.01.2024, the Government Pleader has produced records showing that there was an undertaking dated 30.06.2022 from respondent No.9 on the basis of which the learned Single Judge has refused interim relief.

The appellant being aggrieved by the order dated

12.01.2024 in I.A.No.01 of 2024 in W.P.No.1360 of 2024 filed an Appeal vide W.A.No.348 of 2024 wherein this Court upon examining the letter dated 28.12.2022 from the Director of Public Health found a discrepancy. It was stated in the said letter that respondent No.9 had not submitted an undertaking earlier and had done so only on 28.12.2022. Taking note of the same, this Court vide judgment dated 03.05.2024 in W.A.No.348 of 2004 has set aside the order dated 12.01.2024, by suspending the impugned Memo dated 11.08.2023, and further directed the learned Single Judge to hear the main writ petition i.e., W.P.No.1360 of 2024 on merits.

It is the case of the appellant that despite the order of this Court, the authorities did not reinstate the appellant to her post in Wanaparthy or pay her salary, aggrieved by which the appellant had filed a second writ petition vide W.P.No. 25087 of 2024. However, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 11.04.2025 has dismissed the writ petition by imposing costs of Rs.10,000/- on the appellant.

The appellant being aggrieved by the order dated

11.04.2025 passed in W.P.No.25087 of 2024 by the learned Single Judge had preferred the present writ appeal.

The learned Single Judge vide order dated 11.04.2025 in W.P.No.25087 of 2024 held inter alia that the underlying writ petition is frivolous and vexatious in nature for the reason that even though a writ petition vide W.P.No.1360 of 2024 was filed by the writ petitioner seeking a relief akin to the underlying writ petition was pending, the petitioner with an ulterior motive filed the underlying writ petition under the guise of public interest to secure a favourable order; that the learned Single Judge held that it is apposite to impose costs upon the writ petitioner as his action in filing the subsequent writ petition was frivolous and vexatious; and had dismi