Mutual transfer of government employees, when subject to explicit conditions of assigning the last rank in the new unit and foregoing previous seniority, precludes the employee from claiming parity with their original batch mates in the new unit of appointment.

ORDER:

The Writ Petition is filed questioning the order passed by the respondent No.2 vide TS CCT’s Ref.No.C(DX4)/615/2007, dated 16.08.2021, whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that no appeal was filed against the final seniority list within the stipulated time and the consequential action of the respondents in not placing the petitioner in the seniority list along with the 2007 batch of Assistant Commercial Tax Officers (ACTOs), despite her objections and representations with reference to proceedings No.E1/166/2012, dated 01.04.2015, as illegal and arbitrary.

Heard Sri K.Bheema Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.Sravan Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer through the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission pursuant to Notification No.10/2004 and was allotted to Zone–III and posted in Guntur Nodal Division. After successful completion of probation, she sought mutual transfer to Zone–VI and on such request, the then Government of the combined State of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Rt.No.599, Revenue (CT–I) Department, dated 22.04.2010, ordering mutual transfer between the petitioner and one K. Sujatha, ACTO, Hyderabad Rural Division, Zone–VI, under para 5(2)(d) of the Presidential Order. The said Government Order stipulated that the mutual transfer would be subject to assigning last rank in the seniority below the last regular candidate in the new unit of appointment and foregoing seniority in the present unit. In pursuance to the said G.O., the petitioner was transferred and appointed to Zone–VI and joined duty as ACTO in Hyderabad Rural Division on 05.05.2010, while Smt. K. Sujatha was posted to Zone–III.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that, while it being so, the respondent No.2 prepared a provisional seniority list of ACTOs for the unit of Hyderabad (Rural) Division under Zone–VI under proceedings No.E1/166/2012, dated 14.04.2012, wherein the petitioner was placed at Serial No.39. The respondent No.2 invited objections to the said provisional list and the petitioner submitted objections requesting that her seniority in Zone–VI be counted from her original date of joining as ACTO in Zone–III i.e., 22.10.2007, rather than from the date of joining in Zone–VI on 05.05.2010. However, the seniority list was later finalized on 01.04.2015 in the same proceedings No.E1/166/2012 without considering her objections and her position remained unchanged, placing her effectively with the 2009 batch of APPSC recruitees.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the note appended to the final seniority list stated that, in view of G.O.Rt.No.599, Revenue (CT-I) Department, 22.04.2010, the mutual transferees were to be placed below the last regular candidate in the new unit and the petitioner’s date of joining in Zone–VI, namely 05.05.2010, was taken as the basis for her seniority. In the case of the corresponding transferee, Smt. K. Sujatha, who moved from Zone–VI to Zone–III in the same mutual transfer, the authorities placed her immediately below Smt. K.Lakshmi Devi, ACTO, treating her on par with the 2007 batch ACTOs in Zone–III, thereby giving her the benefit of the 2007 batch notwithstanding the mutual transfer.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, aggrieved by the final seniority list dated 01.04.2015, the petitioner submitted an appeal dated 07.07.2015 through proper channel to the respondent No.2, who forwarded the same to the respondent No.1 vide letter in TS CCT’s Ref.No.C(DX4)/615/2007, dated 14.08.2015. As no orders were passed on the said appeal for years together, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.4289 of 2021 seeking a direction to dispose of her appeal. This Court, vide order dated 23.02.2