Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
S Hari vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 13 February, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
W.P.Nos.21204. 21206, 21210, 21535, 21865. 22098. 22151. 22395
22399, 22644 and 22647 of 2024
WRIT PETITION NO: 21204 OF 2024
Between;
S V K Kumar, S/o Visweshwara Rao, Aged 56 years, Occ- FRO,
Territorial Range Eluru, R/o Ameenapeta Eluru District.
...Petitioner
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Forest, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra
Pradesh.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Andhra
Pradesh, Department of Forest, Aranya Bhavan, Mangalagiri, Andhra
Pradesh.
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may
be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one on the
nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2"^ respondent in
issuing transfer orders, vide 4 S.O.No.12/2024/HR-1 dated 20.09.2024,
wherein the petitioner was transferred from Territorial Range Eluru, Eluru
Division to SF Range, Rajahmundry, despite the petitioners representation
dt.21.08.2024 and contrary to clause 5 (a) of the transfer guidelines issued
under G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024 and as illegal, arbitrary, in violation
of article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently prayed to
2
set aside the impugned transfer orders against the petitioner standing at
Serial No.7 in S.O.No.12/2024/HR-1, dated 20.09.2024, issued by the 2 nd
respondent considering the fact that he holds the office of Vice President-1
of AP State Forest Range Officer Association.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to suspend the impugned transfer orders against the petitioner
standing at Serial No.7 in S.O.No.12/2024/HR-1, dated 20.09.2024, issued
by the 2""' Respondent considering the fact that he holds the office of Vice
President-1 of AP State Forest Range Officer Association.
lA NO: 2 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court pleased
to direct respondent No. 2 to consider the petitioners representation dated
21.08.2024 considering the fact that he holds the office of Vice President-1
of AP State Forest Range Officer Association.
lA NO: 3 OF 2024
Between:
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary
Department of Forest, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra
Pradesh.
The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Andhra
Pradesh, Department of Forest, Aranya Bhavan, Mangalagiri, Andhra
I rsQssh.
...Petitioners/Respondents
AND
S V K Kumar, S/o Visweshwara Rao, Aged 56 years, Occ- FRO
Territorial Range Eluru, R/o Ameenapeta Eluru District.
...Respondent/Writ Petitioner
3
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to vacate the interim orders in I.A.No. 1 of 2024 in W.P.No 21204
of 2024 dated 24.09.2024 and dismiss the Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G V S KISHORE KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES -1
WRIT PETITION NO: 21206 OF ?n9d
Between:
N Lakshmipathi, S/o (Late) N Narayana Swami, Aged 51 years, Occ-
FRO, Flying Squad Party, Tirupathi. R/o 19-12-458, Byragipatteda
Tirupathi, Chittoor District.
...Petitioner
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Forest, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra
Pradesh.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Andhra
Pradesh, Department of Forest, Aranya Bhavan, Mangalagiri, Andhra
Pradesh.
3. B. Ramla Nayak, S/o Somla Naik, Aged 60 years. Occupation FRO,
FSD Tirupathi, R/O 19-3-1/g/s4/1, Garudadri Nagar, Koramenu gunta,
Tirupathi, Tirupathi (Urban), Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh 517501.
Respondent No. 3 impleaded as per Court Order dated 28-01-2025
vide I.A.No. 1 of 2025.
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may
be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one on the
nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^ respondent in
issuing transfer orders, vide S.O.No.10/2024/HR-1 dated 20.09.2024,
wherein the petitioner was transferred from Flying Squad Party, Tirupathi
FSD to Kalyandurg Range, Ananthapuram Range, despite the petitioners
representation dt.22.08.2024 and contrary to clause 5 (a) of the transfer
guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024 and as illegal.
arbitrary, in violation of article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and
consequently prayed to set aside the impugned transfer orders against the
petitioner standing at Serial No.3 in S.O.No.10/2024/HR-1, dated
20.09.2024, issued by the 2"'^ respondent considering the fact that he holds
the office of State President of AP State Forest Range Officer Association
and State Vice President of the AP Government Employees Association.
\A NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased may be pleased to suspend the impugned transfer orders against
the petitioner standing at Serial No.3 in S.O.No.10/2024/HR-l, dated
20.09.2024, issued by the 2""^ respondent considering the fact that he holds
the office of State President of AP State Forest Range Officer Association
and State Vice President of the AP Government Employees Association.
lA NO: 2 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased may direct respondent No. 2 to consider the petitioners
representation dated 22.08.2024 considering the fact that he holds the office
of Vice President-1 of AP State Forest Range Officer Association.
lA NO: 3 OF 2024
Between:
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary
Department of Forest, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra
Pradesh.
5
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Andhra
Pradesh, Department of Forest, Aranya Bhavan, Mangalagiri, Andhra
Pradesh.
...Petitioners/Respondents
AND
N Lakshmipathi, S/o (Late) N Narayana Swami, Aged 51 years, Occ-
FRO, Flying Squad Party, Tirupathi, R/o 19-12-458, Byragipatteda,
Tirupathi, Chittoor District.
...Respondent/WritPetitioner
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to vacate the interim Orders in W.P.No 21206 of 2024 dated
25.09.2024 and dismiss the Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G V S KISHORE KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES -1
WRIT PETITION NO: 21210 OF 024
Between:
P. Maruthi Prasada Rao, S/o P. Hanumanta Rao, aged 46 years.
Assistant Conservator of Forests, Occ Divisional Forest Officer, Flying
Squad Division, Guntur
...Petitioner
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary.
Department of Environment, Forest, Science and Technology,
Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Principal Secretary
Finance Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District,
Andhra Pradesh.
3. The PrI. Chief Conservator of Forests, (Head of Forest Force), Andhra
Pradesh, Aranya Bhavan, Mangalagiri.
4. The Chief Conservatorof Forests, Guntur Circle, Guntur.
6
5. S. Ravi Shankar, s/o S. Bala Eswaraiah aged 60 years DFO, WLM
Eluru, West Godavari District.
v?d"No"?of
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the atfidavit filed therewith, the High Court may
be pleased to issue writ, order, or direction more particularly in the nature of
writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings Ref. No. EFS02-
11030/2/2024-ADMIN SEC-PCCF/Admn.2 dt.22-09-2024 (0.0. No.20/20
24/Admn.2) issued by the 3'" Respondent effecting: the transfers and issuing
postings to the petitioner to Asst. State Agriculturist, Rajahmundry is
arbitrary illegal without jurisdiction and contrary to the guidelines issued in
G.O.Ms. No.75, dt. 17.08.2024, and in violation of article 14 and 16 of
constitution of India and to set aside the
same in respect of the transferring
and posting petitioner and to issue
i- a consequential direction to the 3rd
Respondent to continue the petitioner at the present place of posting i.e..
Flying Squad Division, Guntur.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed i
in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to direct the 3'^ and 4*'"
respondents to continue the petitioner in the
present place of posting by suspending the proceedings Ref. No. EFS02-
11030/2/2024-ADMIN
SEC-PCCF/Admn.2, dt.22-09-2024
(O.O.No.20/2024/Admn.2) issued by the 3'^^ Respondent to the extent of
petitioner only.
7
lA NO: 2 OF 2024
Between:
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary.
Department of Environment. Forest, Science and Technology,
Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Principal Secretary
A
Andhra Pradesh.
Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District
Conservator of Forests, (Head of Forest Force). Andhra
Pradesh, Aranya Bhavan, Mangalagiri.
4. The Chief Conservator of Forests, Guntur Circle, Guntur.
...Petitioners/Respondents
AND
P. Maruthi Prasada Rao, S/o P. Hanumanta Rao, aged 46 years,
Assistant Conservator of Forests, Occ Divisional Forest Officer Flying
Squad Division, Guntur
...Respondent/Writ Petitioner
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to vacate the interim Orders dt.24.09.2024 passed in I.A.No.l of
2024 in W.P.No 21210 of 2024 and dismiss the Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.RAJENDRA BABU
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES -I
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI BHARGAVA RAJU MANTHINA
WRIT PETITION NO: 21535 OF 2024
Between:
K Sasi Bhushan Rao Yadav, S/o K Srinivasarao Aged 47 years, Occ
FBO. Perlavaripalem Beat, Ongole Range R/o 17-211, Boyinavarii
Palem, Epurupalem, Prakasam District.
...Petitioner
8
-'I
AND
1.
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Forest, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra
Pradesh.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Andhra
Pradesh, Department of Forest, Aranya Bhavan, Mangalagiri, Andhra
Pradesh.
3.
The Field Director, Project Tiger, Nandhyala. Deputy Field Director,
Project Tiger, Markapuram, Prakasam District.
4.
Deputy Field Director, Project Tiger, Markapuram, Prakasam District.
5. District Forest Officer, Prakasam District.
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may
be pleas pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one on
the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the 4*'" respondent in
issuing transfer orders, vide S.O.No.26/2024/A2, dated 22.09.2024, wherein
the petitioner was placed at S.No.13 and transferred from Potiuru Beat of
Kavali Range to Motupalli Beat of Vetapalem Section of Chirala Range,
despite the petitioners association representation dt. 02.12.2021 and
27.09.2021 and contrary to clause 5 (a) of the transfer guidelines issued
under G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024 and as illegal, arbitrary, in violation
of article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently prayed to
set aside the impugned transfer orders against the petitioner standing at
Serial No. 13 in S.O.No.26/2024/A2, dated 22.09.2024, issued by the 2nd
respondent considering the fact that he holds the office of Vice President-1
of AP State Forest Range Officer Association.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
9
pleased to suspend the impugned transfer orders against the petitioner
standing at Serial No. 13 in S.O.No.26/2024/A2, dated 22.09.2024, issued
by the 4'^ Respondent considering the fact that he holds the office of State
President of AP State Forest Range Officer Association and State Vice
President of the AP Government Employees Association.
lA NO: 2 OF 2024
Between:
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Forest, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra
Pradesh.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Andhra
Pradesh, Department of Forest, Aranya Bhavan, Mangalagiri, Andhra
Pradesh.
3. The Field Director, Project Tiger, Nandhyala. Deputy Field Director,
Project Tiger, Markapuram, Prakasam District.
4. Deputy Field Director, Project Tiger, Markapuram, Prakasam District.
5. District Forest Officer, Prakasam District.
...Petitioners/Respondents
AND
K Sasi Bhushan Rao Yadav, S/o K Srinivasarao, Aged 47 years, Occ
FBO, Perlavaripalem Beat, Ongole Range, R/o 17-211, Boyinavarii
Palem, Epurupalem, Prakasam District.
...Respondent/Writ Petitioner
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to vacate interim orders passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in WP
No.21535/2024, dated 26.09.2024 and dismiss the writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G V S KISHORE KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES - I
10
WRIT PETITION NO: 21865 OF 2024
Between:
P. Md. Areef Khan, S/o.Late Patan Salar Khan, Occ- Forest Range
Officer, aged 56 years, Nekkanti Range of Project Tiger, Markapur '
Prakasam District.
...Petitioner
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary,
Environment, Forest, Science and Technology Department, A.P.
Secretariat at Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District
2. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of Forest Force
Aranya Bhavan, APIIC Towers, Mangalagiri, Guntur District
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may
be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction mostly one which
is in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the
Respondents in not considering the request of the petitioner to be
transferred to Kanigiri Range of Prakasam Division, Ongole from the present
posting of Nekkanti Range in Srisailam ITDA area and issuing orders in
Ref.No.6666/2024/HR-1 dated 20-09-2024 of the 2nd Respondent is illegal,
arbitrary, contrary to G.O.Ms.No. 75 dated 17-08-2024, unjust and violative
of Art 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and
consequently direct the Respondents to consider the request and transfer
the Petitioner to Kanigiri Range of Prakasam Division, Ongole in terms of
G.O.Ms.No. 75 dated 17-08-2024.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to suspend the operation of orders in Ref.No.6666/2024/H R-1 dated
11
20-09-2024 of the 2"*^ Respondent only with respect to Kanigiri Range,
Prakasam Division, Ongole.
Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s SODUM ANVESHA
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I
WRIT PETITION NO: 22098 OF 2024
Between:
1. Yedlapalli Johnson, S/o. Samuel, aged about 60 years, Occ Forest
Section Officer, R/o. Flat No.202, Dhanalakshmi Residency, East
Kammapalem, Ongole Town, Prakasam District.
2. Addeti Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Ramalingam, aged about 58 years Occ
Assistant Beat Officer, R/o. D. No. 9-338, Gopalarao Veedhi, Addanki
Town, Prakasam District, A.P.
...Petitioners
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Special Chief Secretary,
Environment, Forest, Science and Technology Department Secretariat,
Velagapudi, Amaravathi.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Forest Department, Aranya
Bhavan, P.V.S. Land Mark, Near APIIC Towers, Mangalagiri, Guntur
District.
3. The Chief Conservator of Forests, Guntur Circle, Guntur, Guntur
District, A.P.
4. The District Forest Officer, Bapatla, Bapatia District, A.P.
5. The Deputy Director, Project Tiger, Wild Life Division, Markapuram
Division, Ganesh Nagar, Markapur, Prakasam District, A.P.
6. M. Venkateswarlu, S/o. not known to the Petitioner, Occ Forest Section
Officer, Kolukula Section, Yerragondapalem Range Prakasam District,
A.P.
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may
be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more
12
particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the
Official Respondents in issuing the two impugned orders vide Rc. No.
1962/2024/A2 dated 22.09.2024 by transferring the Petitioners from their
present place of postings to other places as arbitrary, illegal and in violation
of G.O.Ms.No. 75 dated 17.08.2024 and against the Articles 14, 19 and 21
of the Constitution of India and
consequently set aside the impugned orders
vide Rc. No. 1962/2024/A2 dated 22.09.2024 issued by the Official
Respondent No.5 to the extent of the Petitioners only and direct the Official
Respondent authorities to continue the Petitioner No.1 at his present place
of posting at Vetapalem Section, Chirala Range of Bapatia District as Forest
Section Officer and the Petitioner No.2 at his present place of posting at
Kukatlapalli Beat, Vetapalem Section, Chirala Range of Bapatia District as
Assistant Beat Officer.
lA NO: 1 OF 9n9A
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to pass an interim order by suspending the two impugned orders
vide Rc. No. 1962/2024/A2 dated 22.09.2024 issued by the Official
Respondent No.5 to the extent of the Petitioners only, until disposal of the
above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SRINIVASA RAO NARRA
I
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES -I
WRIT PETITION NO: 22151 OF 207^
Between:
Brindavan Gardenrcuntur ■ ^ Chandramouli Nagar,
...Petitioner
AND
13
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Environment, Forest, Science and Technology Department Secretariat,
Velagapudi, Guntur District.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of Forest Force,
Government of Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.
3. The Chief Conservator of Forest, Guntur Circle, Guntur.
4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Flying Squad Division, Collectorate
Complex, Guntur.
5.
A.V. Neelakanteswara Reddy, S/o A. Raghava Reddy, Aged 44 years.
Forest Range Officer, Yerragundapalem Range, Markapur Project Tiger
Division Prakasam District
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may
be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly
one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned orders of the
2nd respondent vide Ref.No.6666/2024/HR-1, Dt.14.09.2024 and
consequential orders in Ref.No.6666/2024/HR-1 (S.O.No.11/2024/HR -1),
Dt.20.09.2014 in transferring the petitioner from FSP, Guntur FSP, Guntur to
Yerragondapalem Range, Markapur Project Tiger Division as illegal,
arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India
apart from being in total contravention of G.O.Ms.No.75, Dt. 17.08.2024 and
set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to continue the
petitioner in the present place of working i.e.. Flying Squad Party, Flying
Squad Division, Guntur.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to direct the respondents to direct the respondents to continue the
petitioner in the present place of working i.e.. Flying Squad Party, Flying
Squad Division, Guntur by suspending the orders of the 2"'^ respondent vide
Ref. NO.6666/2024/HR-1 (S.O.No.11/2024/HR-1). Dt.20.09.2014.
14
1
lA NO: 2 OF 2024
Between:
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Environment, Forest, Science and Technology Department Secretariat
Velagapudi, Guntur District.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of Forest Force
Government of Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.
3. The Chief Conservator of Forest, Guntur Circle, Guntur.
4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Flying Squad Division, Collectorate
Complex, Guntur.
...Petitioners/Respondents
AND
1. S Hari, S/o S. Krishnappa, Aged 48 years. Forest Range Officer, O/o
^e Divisional Forest Officer, Flying Squad Party, Flying Squad Division,
Collectorate Complex, Guntur, R/o Lane, Chandramouli Nagar,
Brindavan Gardens, Guntur
...Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2. A.V. Neelakanteswara Reddy, S/o A. Raghava Reddy, Aged 44 years
Forest Range Officer, Yerragundapalem Range, Markapur Proiect Tiaer
Division Prakasam District
...Respondent
(Respondent No.2 is only formal party)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to vacate the interim orders in I.A.No. 1 of 2024 in W.P.No 22151 of
2024 dated 04.10.2024 and dismiss the Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES -1
15
WRIT PETITION NO: 22395 OF 2024
Between:
Tirri Sripriya, C/o. Sai Gopi, aged about 37 years, Occ Forest Beat
Officer, R/o. D.No. 2-1v3-8, Venkata Nagar, Kakinada Urban, Kakinada
District, A.P.
...Petitioner
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Special Chief Secretary,
Environment, Forest, Science and Technology Department, Secretariat,
Velagapudi, Amaravathi.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Forest Department, Aranya
Bhavan, P.V.S. Land Mark, Near APIIC Towers, Mangalagiri, Guntur
District.
3. The Chief Conservator of Forests, Rajahmundry Circle,
Rajahmahendravaram, East Godavari District, A.P.
4. The District Forest Officer, Kakinada, Kakinada District, A.P.
5. The Forest Range Officer, Kakinada Range, Kakinada, Kakinada
District.
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may
be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more
particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the
Respondents in issuing the impugned order vide Rc. No. 1665/2024/E(l)
dated 22.09.2024 by transferring the Petitioner from her present place of
posting Taskforce, Kakinada, Kakinada Division to Gurthedu Beat of
Rampachodavaram Range, Rampachodavaram Division without considering
her medical condition as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of G.O.Ms.No. 75
dated 17.08.2024 and against the Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution
of India and consequently set aside the impugned order vide Rc. No.
1665/2024/E(l) dated 22.09.2024 issued by the Respondent No.4 to the
extent of the Petitioner only and direct the Respondent authorities to
continue the Petitioner at her present place of posting at Taskforce,
16
Kakinada, Kakinada Division
as Forest Beat Officer by duly considering her
medical condition as the medical facilities are available at Kakinada for her
treatment.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to pass an interim order by suspending the impugned order vide Rc.
No. 1665/2024/E(l) dated 22.09.2024 issued by the Respondent No.4 to the
extent of the Petitioner only, until disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel forth© Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA RAO NARRA
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES -1
WRIT PETITION NO: 22399 OF 2024
Between:
Thumbeti Velugondaiah, S/o. Velugondaiah, aged about 55 years Occ-
3'210. Rajaka street. Matop^Town
Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District. «Huiiuwn,
...Petitioner
AND
^ P®?' the Special Chief Secretary,
&pud"'A^°;il'kthr""
otl® Chief Conservator of Forests, Forest Department Aranva
DiSrict^' APIIC Towers, Mangalagiri, Guntur
DiSrSt!'A p Guntur Circle, Guntur, Guntur
4. The District Forest Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District, A.P.
Tiger, Wild Life Division, Markapuram
Division, Ganesh Nagar, Markapur, Prakasam District, A.P. ^
...Respondents
17
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may
be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more
particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the
Respondents in issuing the impugned order vide Rc. No. 1962/2024/A2
dated 22.09.2024 by transferring the Petitioner from his present place of
posting Rentapalli Beat of Yerragondapalem Range covered under ITDA to
Palutia Beat of Ganjivaripalli Range, Prakasam District also covered under
ITDA as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of G.O.Ms.No. 75 dated 17.08.2024
and against the Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and
consequently set aside the impugned order vide Rc. No. 1962/2024/A2
dated 22.09.2024 issued by the Respondent No.5 to the extent of the
Petitioner only and direct the Respondent authorities to continue the
Petitioner No.1 at his present place of posting at Rentapalli Beat of
Yerragondapalem Range of Prakasam District as Forest Beat Officer.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to pass an interim order by suspending the impugned order vide Rc.
No. 1962/2024/A2 dated 22.09.2024 issued by the Respondent No.5 to the
extent of the Petitioner only, until disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA RAO NARRA
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I
WRIT PETITION NO: 22644 OF 2024
Between:
N Balakrishna Reddy, S/o N Veerabhadra Reddy, Aged 59 years, Occ-
FRO, Uhittoor West Range, Chittoor District, Ananthapuram Circle, R/o
O/o FRO, Quarters, Opp Judge Bungalow, B V Reddy Colony, Chittoor
District.
...Petitioner
AND
18
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Forest, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. Andhra
Pradesh.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Andhra
Pradesh, Department of Forest. Aranya Bhavan, Mangalagiri Andhra
Pradesh.
3. District Forest Officer, Chittoor District.
4. S.Venkatasubbadu, S/o Sugali Krishtanna, Aged 58 years. Occupation
FRO. Kadiri Range, Puttaparthi, Satya Sai District, R/o 2-270, Near
PHC, Husainapuram, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh - 518010.
Respondent No.4 impleaded as per Court Order dated 06.01.2025
vide I.A.No.4 of 2024 in WP No.22644 of 2024.
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may
be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one on the
nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2 respondent in
nd
issuing transfer orders, vide S.O.No.10/2024/HR-1 dated 20.09.2024,
wherein the petitioner was placed at S.No.16 and transferred from Chittoor
West Range, O/o DFO, Chittoor (T) to Banaganapalli SF Range, SF
Nandyal, despite the petitioners representation dt. 19.08.2024 and contrary
to clause 5 (a) of the transfer guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.75 dated
17.08.2024 and as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India and consequently prayed to set aside the impugned
transfer orders against the petitioner standing at Serial No. 16 in
S.O.No.lO/2024/HR-l, dated 20.09.2024, issued by the 2"'^ respondent
considering the fact that he holds the office of President of AP Forest Range
Officer Association, Ananthapuram Circle.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed i
m support of the petition, the High Court may be
19
pleased to suspend the impugned transfer orders against the petitioner
standing at Serial No. 16 in S.O.No.10/2024/HR-1, dated 20.09.2024, issued
by the 2"^^ respondent considering the fact that he holds the office of
President of AP Forest Range Officer Association, Ananthapuram Circle.
lA NO: 2 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to direct respondent No. 2 to consider the petitioner's
representation dated 19.08.2024, considering the fact that he holds the
office of President of AP Forest Range Officer Association, Ananthapuram
Circle.
lA NO: 3 OF 2024
Between:
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Forest, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra
Pradesh.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Andhra
Pradesh, Department of Forest, Aranya Bhavan, Mangalagiri, Andhra
Pradesh.
3. District Forest Officer, Chittoor District.
...Petitioners/Respondents
AND
N Balakrislina Reddy, S/o N Veerabhadra Reddy, Aged 59 years, Occ-
FRO, Chittoor West Range, Chittoor District, Ananthapuram Circle, R/o
O/o FRO, Quarters, Opp Judge Bungalow, B V Reddy Colony, Chittoor
District.
...Respondent/Wrlt Petitioner
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
20
pleased to vacate the interim orders in I.A.No. 1 of 2024 in W.P.No 22644 of
2024 and dismiss the Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G V S KISHORE KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI UMESH CHANDRA. P.V.G
WRIT PETITION NO: 22647 OF 2024
Between:
Aged 52 years. Occ Administrative
DistnS' ° ^ Akulavari Thota, Guntur
...Petitioner
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary
PrTdesh^^* Forest, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra
Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Andhra
Pradesh Forest, Aranya Bhavan, Mangalagiri, Andhra
3. The Chief Conservator of Forest, Guntur Circle, Guntur District.
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may
be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one on the
nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2""^ respondent in
issuing transfer orders, vide S.O.No.15/2024/HR-2, dated 20.09.2024,
wherein the petitioner was placed at S.No.1 and transferred from Guntur (T)
Division to Prakasam (T) Division, despite the petitioner's representation
dt.27.08.2024 and contrary to clause 5 (a) of the transfer guidelines issued
under G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024 and as illegal, arbitrary, in violation
of article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently prayed to
set aside the impugned transfer orders against the petitioner standing at
Serial No.1 in S.O.No.15/2024/HR-2, dated 20.09.2024, issued by the 2nd
21
respondent considering the fact that he holds the office of Vice President-1
of AP State Forest Range Officer Association.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to direct respondent No. 2 to consider the petitioner's
representation dated 27.08.2024 considering the fact that he holds the office
of Vice President-1 of AP State Forest Range Officer Association.
lA NO: 2 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to suspend the impugned transfer orders against the petitioner
standing at Serial No.1 in S.O.No.15/2024/HR-2, dated 20.09.2024, issued
by the 2"*^ respondent considering the fact that he holds the office of Vice
President of the AP Government Employees Association.
lA NO: 3 OF 2024
Between:
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Forest, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra
Pradesh.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Andhra
Pradesh, Department of Forest, Aranya Bhavan, Mangalagiri, Andhra
Pradesh.
3. The Chief Conservator of Forest, Guntur Circle, Guntur District.
...Petitioners/Respondents
AND
A Padmaja, W/o R Mallikarjuna Rao, Aged 52 years, Occ Administrative
Officer, O/o DFO Guntur Range, R/o 1®^lane, Akulavari Thota, Guntur
District.
...Respondent/Writ Petitioner
22
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to vacate the interim Orders in W.P.No 22647 of 2024 dated
04.10.2024 and dismiss the Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G V S KISHORE KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES -1
The Court made the following common order:
APHC010416842024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
W.P.Nos.21204. 21206, 21210. 21535. 21865. 22098, 22151, 22395,
22399, 22644 and 22647 of 2024
WRIT PETITION NO: 21204/2024
Between:
S V K Kumar ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.G VS KISHORE KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR SERVICES I
WRIT PETITION NO: 21206/2024
Between:
N Lakshmipathi ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT{S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.G VS KISHORE KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
/
Page 2 of 19
1.GP FOR SERVICES I
2. UMESH CHANDRA P V G
WRIT PETITION NO: 21210/2024
Between:
P. Maruthi Prasada Rao, ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.ARAJENDRABABU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR SERVICES I
2.BHARGAVA RAJU MANTHINA
WRIT PETITION NO: 21535/2024
Between:
K Sasi Bhushan Rao Yadav ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.G VS KISHORE KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR SERVICES I
WRIT PETITION NO: 21865/2024
Between:
P. Md. Areef Khan, ...PETITIONER
AND
\
Page 3 of 19
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.SODUM ANVESHA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GPFOR SERVICES!
WRIT PETITION NO: 22098/2024
Between:
Yedlapalli Johnson, and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.SRINIVASA RAO NARRA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR SERVICES I
WRIT PETITION NO: 22151/2024
Between:
S Hari ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GPFOR SERVICES I
WRIT PETITION NO: 22395/2024
Between:
/
Page 4 of 19
Tirri Sripriya, ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner;
1.SRINIVASA RAO NARRA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR SERVICES I
WRIT PETITION NO; 22399/2024
Between:
Thumbeti Velugondaiah ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT{S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.SRINIVASA RAO NARRA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR SERVICES I
WRIT PETITION NO: 22644/2024
Between:
N Balakrishna Reddy ...PETmONER
AND
The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.G VSKISHORE KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR SERVICES I
2.UMESH CHANDRA P V G
Page 5 of 19
WRIT PETITION NO: 22647/2024
Between;
A Padmaja ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.G VS KISHORE KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following:
:: COMMON ORDER ::
Since the issue involved in all the writ petitions is the same, all the writ petitions are disposed of by way of this common order.
2. Heard Sri G.V.S.Kishore Kumar, Sri A.Rajendra Babu, Ms.Sodum Anvesha, Sri Narra Srinivasa Rao and Sri Bethapudi Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services for respondents.
3. Impugning the proceedings whereby the petitioners were transferred to different stations, the above writ petitions are filed.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the petitioners are office bearers of registered association and hence, the transfei of G.O.Ms.No.75 petitioners without assigning reasons is contrary to / Page 6 of 19 Finance (HR.I-PLG. & POLICY) Department, dated 17.08.2024. The transfers of the petitioners since made were contrary to the guidelines/instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024, the said action is arbitrary and hence, the said transfers are vitiated and are liable to be set aside. They would also contend that, in the absence of, any other statutory rules, the government's guidelines have statutory force. No reasons were assigned in the transfer orders.
5. Sri Narra Srinivasa Rao and Ms.Sodum Anvesha, the learned counsel would submit that the transfers of the petitioners are made in violation of Clause IV (11 & 12) of G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024.
6. In oppugnation, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services would submit that the petitioners neither averred arbitrariness nor demonstrated violation/infringement of any right. The office bearers are bound to serve all the employees and mere transfer will not take away their right or duty cast upon them. The respective office bearers failed to furnish relevant material papers to the authorities in support of their claim. The authorities adhered to the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024.
7. Sri Umesh Chandra, learned counsel for intervener adopted the arguments of learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services.
8. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that once the State issued guidelines, the Head of the Department shall necessarily follow the guidelines without any deviation. The election of office bearers was intimated to the Principal Secretary to the Government, General Administration on 28.08.2024 and the same was I. \ Page 7 of 19 acknowledged. Thus, the office bearers even complied with Clause V (5) (b & c) of G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024.
9. ■ In support of contentions the learned counsel for petitioners, relied upon the following citations.
(i) Mr.Chandru H.N. Vs. State of Karnataka and others',
(ii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs. Srikumar Agencies and others^
(iii) Abani Kanta Ray Vs. State of Orissa and others\
(iv) Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi Vs. U.P. Jal Nigam and others^ (V) Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs. State of U.P.' (Vi) A.L.Kalra Vs. Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd.^
(vii) Sk.Nausad Rahaman and others Vs. Union of India and others^
(viii) Manoj Kumar Vs. Union of India and others . and
(ix) Ajay Hasia and others Vs. Khalid Mujib Shrevardi others^
10. In support of the contentions the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services, relied upon the following citations.
i '1LR2011KAR1585 2 (2009) 1 see 469 ^ 1995 Supp(4) see 169 ^ (2003) 11 see 740 ^ (2007) 8 see 150 *(1984)3 see 316 ' (2022) 12 see 1 '«*H2024) 3 see 563 '(1981) 1 see 722 Page 8 of 19
(i) Rasamsetti Hemaprakash Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others'",
(ii) B.Varadha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka and others",
(iii) Shilpi Bose (Mrs) and others Vs. State of Bihar and others'^
(iv) Union of India and others Vs. S.L. Abbas'\
(v) S.C.Saxena Vs. Union of India and others'^
(vi) Sanjay Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others",
(vii) Order of Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.325 of 2019 dated 15.10.2019.
(viii) Central PWD Engineers Association and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Anr'".
11. Now, the points for consideration are:
(i) Whether the transfer proceedings issued by the respondent authorities in respect of each of the petitioners', suffer from arbitrariness?
(ii) Whether the respondent authorities failed to adhere to the guidelines/instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024.?
(iii) Whether the guidelines/instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024 have any statutory force?10
2024 see OnLine AP 4489 11 (1986)4 see 131 12 13 1991 Supp(2) see 659 14 (1993) 4 see 357 (2006) 9 see 583 15 2017 see OnLine All 4281 16 W.p. (e) No. 11733 of 2019 dated 25.045.2023 of High eourt of Delhi.
Page 9 of 1912 Before delving into the merits of the matter let this Court examine the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India qua the transfers from various judgments cited by the learned counsel. The expressions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in some of the judgments are extracted here for a better conceptualization of the issue.
13. In N.K.Singh Vs. Union of India and others'', the Hon'ble Apex Court held that transfer which is an incidence of service is not to be interfered with by the Courts unless it is shown to be arbitrary or vitiated by malafides or infraction of any professed norms or principles governing the transfer.
14. The above principle was reiterated in Abani Kanta Ray Vs. State Of Orissa and others {supra-3) and Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. {supra-5).
15. The transfer of officers is required to be effected based on set norms or guidelines. The power of transferring an officer cannot be wielded arbitrarily, mala fide or an exercise against an efficient and independent officer or at the instance of politicians whose work is not done by the officer concerned. For better administration, the officers concerned must have freedom from fear of being harassed by repeated transfers or transfers ordered at the instance of someone who has nothing to do with the business of administration.
Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi Vs. U.P. Jal Nigam {supra-4)
16. An administrative authority, who purports to act by its regulation must be bound by the regulations. Even the regulations have no force of law, the employee under the corporation is a public employee and.
(1994) 6 see 98 Page 10 of 19 therefore, the employee would get a statutory status, which would enable him to get declaration for continuation in service, if he was dismissed or discharge contrary to regulations.
Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi'*.
17. Thus, a conspectus of the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court, an employee holding a transferable post cannot claim any vested right to work at a particular place as the transfer order normally does not affect legal rights. The transfer of an employee 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 the Courts will not interfere with an order of transfer unless it is found to be an outcome of arbitrary or mala fide exercise of power. If a transfer is affected, without following guidelines and is tainted with malafides, it can be interfered.
18. Usually, the employer has absolute power to transfer his employee, whenever he wants because the transfer is ordered looking into the character and quality of work, the employee does. However, this power of the employers is neither absolute nor exercised capriciously. An order of transfer of an employee should be passed in the public interest or in the interest of the institution where the employee serves. Exigencies of administrative purpose also sometimes persuade the employer to transfer the employee from one place to another.
19. The. object of framing a transfer policy is to increase transparency and to provide better opportunities to officers for excellence and also a more planned approach. The object of framing transfer policy in a welfare State is to eliminate the possibility of any arbitrary or discriminatory (1975) 1 see 421 \ Page 11 of 19 The underiying approach by the authorities in effecting such transfer. idea in laying down an exhaustive and detailed policy is to exclude not only arbitrariness but also bias or malafides in any manner whatsoever.
as to the fair The scope of judicial review qua transfers is circumscribed exercise of power, absence of malafides and violation of statutory norms or guidelines.
provisions as well as deviation from the professed W.P.Nos.21204,
20. Coming to the facts of the case, the petitioners in are the officer 21206, 21210, 22151, 22644, 22647 and 21535 of 2024 bearers of registered associations. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024 framing guidelines/instructions in respect of transfers and postings of employees. The said G.O., was Constitution of India.
issued by the Government, under Article 162 of the There are no separate set of rules or regulations, regulating the transfer the Government of employees, except the guidelines being issued by from time to time. In the preamble of the G.O., it was mentioned that
-
and The Government is committed to the welfare of its employees efficient and seeks to promote work-life balance, while ensuring forward in this effective service delivery to the citizens. In move direction, it is required that the employees are posted at places where they can contribute to the best of their abilities for improved governance and efficient delivery of public services.
and
21. Para No.lV of the G.O.. deals with Principles for Transfers Postings. Para No.V deals with Procedures for Transfers and Postings.
adumbrated that
22. In the principles for transfers and postings, it was stay of 5 years at employees who have completed a period of continuous a 'station as of 31 July, 2024, shall invariably be transferred, tmfMoyees, other than those who completed 5 years of stay at a station. ^ V / Page 12 of 19 shall also be eligible for transfer on administrative exigencies or a personal request. Such employees too shall exercise preference for stations. Sub Clause No.4 of para IV deals with preferences to certain categories. Sub Clauses 11 & 12 of para IV deals with employees working ITDA areas for more than two years and the criteria to be followed for postings in ITDA areas.
23. Sub Clause No.5 of para No.V prescribes the procedure for the transfer of officer bearers of recognized employee associations. Sub Clause No.5 (a) of para V prescribes that the office bearers of recognized employee associations, shall not be transferred at the State level, District level and Division/Mandal level until they complete 3 terms or 9 years of stay in a particular station. Sub Clause No.5 (b. c & d) of para V mandates to forward the list of office bearers at the taluk and district levels of recognized associations to the Heads of Departments at the district level through the respective Collector and to the HODs at the state level through the General Administration Department. Sub Clause No.5 (d) of para V which is relevant is extracted below:
(d) However, the competent authorities can affect transfer on administrative grounds even before expiry of the present nine years period after recording the reasons.
24. While Sub Clause No.1 of para IV speaks about the transfer of an employee invariable on completion of a continuous stay of 5 years at a station, sub Clause No.5 (a) of para No.V exempts the office bearers from transfers until they complete 3 terms or 9 years of stay in a particular station. The transferring authority should have considered these clauses cautiously and carefully.
X V Page 13 of 19
25. Sub Clause No.5 (a) of para No.V, a latter clause, shall be treated as an exception to Sub Clause No.1 of para IV. It is pertinent to mention here that sub Clause No.5 (d) of para V makes a further exception to sub Clause No.5 (a) of para V that transfers can be effected by recording reasons before the expiry of such period. However, in none of the orders of transfers, impugned, hardly reasons are assigned.
26. Whether failure to act upon the guidelines would amount to arbitrariness and the guidelines have any statutory force?
27. Whether the guidelines have statutory force was dealt with by this Court in W.P.No.20524 of 2024 dated 24.12.2024. This Court by placing reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paluru Ramakrishnaiah Vs. Union of India''; Nagpur Improvement Trust Vs. Yadaorao Jagannath Kumbhare^"; North West Railway Vs. Chanda Devi'' and Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Rabindranath Choubey" and eventually concluded that guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024 issued in exercise of the executive Power of State under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, and thus have statutory force.
28. The Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Mr.Chandru H.N. Vs. State of Karnataka and others {supra-^), while dealing with a reference where the guidelines of the Government Order No.DPAR 4 STR 2001, Bangalore, dated 22.11.2001 relating to the transfer of Government servants, which has come into force from 22.11.2001 have any statutoiy force or not, answered the reference in affirmative. The Full Bench held that in the absence of any rules providing for regulating the AIR 1990 SC 166 (1999) 8 see 99 (2008) 2 sec 108 (2020) 18 sec 71 Page 14 of 19 transfer and providing guidelines therein, the executive order issued in the exercise of power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India will have statutory force and can be enforced, as the extent of executive power of the State to make laws is subject to the provisions of the Constitution and the executive power of the State shall extend to the matters in respect to which legislature has power to make laws.
29. In the light of the above pronouncements, this Court is of the considered opinion that G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024 framing guidelines for transfers and postings of employees have statutory force.
30. As discussed supra, sub Clause 5 (a) of para V is an exception to sub Clause No.1 of para IV, qua the transfers of office bearers of recognized associations. It is not out of place to mention here that further exception is carved out by way of sub Clause 5(d) of para V i.e. recording reasons.
31. The administrative authority while exercising jurisdiction and effect transfers in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024, shall adhere to the guidelines/instructions prescribed therein. In fact, the authority is bound by the regulations. Of course, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court cannot substitute its opinion. It is entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring the lawfulness of the executive decisions. One should not be oblivious that the executive instructions or administrative directions concerning transfers and postings do not confer any indefeasible right to claim transfer or posting in favour of an employee. At the same time, the employer shall be bound by the guidelines/instructions. The failure of the employer to adhere to the guidelines, which prescribe the procedure, in the opinion of this Page 15 of 19 Court, amounts to arbitrariness and thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
32. Equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14, and if it effects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Article 16. Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N."
33. Within the realm of judicial review in common law jurisdictions, it is established that constitutional courts are entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring the lawfulness of executive decisions, rather than substituting their own judgment to decide the rights of the parties, which they would exercise in civil jurisdiction. It has been held that the primary purpose of quashing any action is to preserve order in the legal system by preventing excess and abuse of power or to set aside arbitrary actions. Wade on Administrative Law states that the purpose of quashing is not the final determination of private rights, for a private party must separately contest his own rights before the administrative authority. Such private party is also not entitled to compensation merely because the administrative action is illegal.
It is equally incumbent upon the courts, as a secondary measure, to address the injurious consequences arising from arbitrary and illegal actions. This concomitant duty to take reasonable measures (1974) 4 see 3 Page 16 of 19 to restitute the injured is our overarching constitutional purpose. Manoj Kumar Vs. Union of lndia^^
34. Thus, in this case at hand, despite the guidelines issued by the State the transferring authority failed to adhere to the said guidelines and affected transfers and such an act is arbitrary and amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court. As noted supra, this Court is not substituting its opinion for the opinion of the transferring authority, however, the process adopted by the authority does not align with the transfer guidelines which have statutory force.
35. It is also not out of place to mention here that in Rasamsetti Hemaprakash's case (supra-10), this Court by placing reliance upon Shilpi Bose's case {supra-^2), concerning the transfer of office bearers, since reasons were assigned, dismissed the writ petition. However, in the case at hand, no reasons were assigned except for mentioning administrative grounds/requests. Such a course adopted by the authority shocks the consciousness of a prudent man and it is not only arbitrary but also violative of both Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
36. Of course, as pointed out by the learned Assistant Government pleader the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.Abbas's case (supra-13) observed that non-following of the executive instructions by itself cannot be termed as malafide, however, one should consider the facts of each case in applying the ratio. One should understand the facts of the case and the circumstances, in which, the observations were made.
37. In Abdul Kayoom Vs. CIT^^ the Hon'ble Apex Court observed thus:
\ (2024) 3 see 563 : 2024 See OnLine Se 163 Page 17 of 19 Each case depends on its own facts, and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough, because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) [(I960) 3 SCR N 681] by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, its broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive . . .
* * * "Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it".
38. Thus, the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Abba's pase do not apply to the facts of the cases at hand. In the cases at hand, there are flagrant violations and the authority affecting transfers violated the guidelines issued by the State. In this background, the expressions of the Apex Court in S.L.Abbas' case have no relevance.
39. In the counter affidavits, the respective deponents made a futile effort to improve the case, It is a well-settled principle of law that pleading cannot substitute a reason in an administrative order. This view is fortified by the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. the Chief Election Commissioner^® wherein it was held that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned therein and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the share of an affidavit or otherwise; otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to the Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional 1962 SC 680 : 1961 SCC OnLine SC 244 26 (1978) 1 SCC 405 Page 18 of 19 reasons or grounds later brought in. The Apex Court referred to an earlier judgment in Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs Gordhandas BhanjP.
40. Insofar as, transfers relating to the petitioners in W.P.No.21865, 22098, 22395 and 22399 of 2024 are concerned, the petitioners are challenging the transfers to ITDA or consider their request to transfer from ITDA area to plain areas. As discussed supra, para IV prescribes principles for transfers and postings. Sub Clause No. 11 & 12 of para IV, which is relevant is extracted herebelow:
11.
The employees (Local Cadres, Zonal Cadres) working in ITDA areas for more than two (2) years may be transferred to the stations of their choice, subject to fulfillment of conditions stipulated in these orders, giving the due preference to the interse seniority among the employees working in these areas.
12. For the purpose of postings in ITDA Areas, the following criteria shall be followed, i. The employees shall preferably be below 50 years of age. ii. The employees who have not worked earlier in the ITDA areas so far shall be considered for transfers considering the length of their service in plain areas in the descending order of preference.
41. A perusal of the above sub-clauses 11 & 12, in the considered opinion of this Court, they cannot be treated as an exception to sub clause No.4 of para IV. It only prescribes a procedure and the preference. The employer is the best person to place an employee at a particular place. The order of transfer of an employee will not visit the employee of grave consequence as he would be required to function from a different place or unit, subject to such transfer. The rest of the conditions remain intact. As pointed out by the Apex Court in Noushad AIR 1952 SC 16 Page 19 of 19 Rahaman's case, the executive instructions and administrative directions concerning transfers and postings do not confer an indefeasible right to claim a transfer and posting, The individual convenience of persons who are employed in the service is subject to the overarching needs of the administration.
42. In the absence of any infringement of any fundamental or statutory rights apparent, this Court is loath to interfere with those matters. No malice is attributed. Even if it is attributed, the person against whom malice is attributed is not made a party to the writ petition to rebut the malice. Whenever the allegations of mala fides are made, the persons against whom the same are leveled need to be impleaded as parties to the proceedings to enable them to answer the charge. Ratnagiri Gas and Power (P) Ltd. Vs. RDS Projects Ltd 28 •J
43. Given the discussion supra, the W.P.Nos.21204, 21206, 21210, 22151, 22644, 22647 and 21535 of 2024 are Allowed. The W.P.No.21865, 22098, 22395 and 22399 of 2024 are Dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
(2013) 1SCC 524 : SCC online SC 886
SdZ-K.SRINIVASA RAJU
//TRUE COPY// ASSISTAN^^E^JSTRAR
SECT ON OFFICER
To,
1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
2. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
3. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Forest, Aranya Bhavan, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh.
4. The Chief Conservator of Forest, Guntur Circle, Guntur District.
5. The District Forest Officer, Chittoor District.
/ 24
6. The District Forest Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District, A.P.
7. The Deputy Director, Project Tiger, Wild Life Division, Markapuram Division, Ganesh Nagar, Markapur, Prakasam District, A.P. Chief Conservator of Forests, Rajahmundry Circle, Rajahmahendravaram, East Godavari District, A.P.
9. The District Forest Officer, Kakinada, Kakinada District, A.P.
10. The Forest Range Officer, Kakinada Range, Kakinada, Kakinada District.
11. The Chief Conservator of Forest, Guntur Circle, Guntur.
12. The Divisional Forest Officer, Flying Squad Division, Collectorate Complex, Guntur.
13. The Chief Conservator of Forests, Guntur Circle, Guntur, Guntur District, A.P.
14. The District Forest Officer, Bapatia, Bapatia District, A.P.
15. The Deputy Director, Project Tiger, Wild Life Division, Markapuram A.P. Division, Ganesh Nagar, Markapur, Prakasam District,
16. The Field Director, Project Tiger. Nandhyala.
17. District.
The Deputy Field Director, Project Tiger, Markapuram, Prakasam
18. The District Forest Officer, Prakasam District.
19. One CC to Sri G V S Kishore Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]
20. One CC to Sri Srinivasa Rao Narra, Advocate [OPUC]
21. One CC to Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, Advocate [OPUC]
22. One CC to M/s Sodum Anvesha, Advocate [OPUC]
23. One CC to Sri A Rajendra Babu, Advocate [OPUC]
24. One CC to M/s Bhargava Raju Manthina, Advocate [OPUC]
25. Two CCs to GP for Services -1, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
26. Two CD Copies RAM 25 HIGH COURT DATED:13/02/2025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos. 21204, 21206, 21210, i 2 1 FEB 2025 21535,21865,22098,22151, ' ^ . Current Section ^ .
O 22395, 22399, 22644 and 22647 of 2024 ALLOWING ALL THE WP.Nos.21204, 21206, 21210, 22151, 22644, 22647 and 21535 of 2024 WITHOUT COSTS & DISMISSING ALLTHE WP.Nos. 21865, 22098, 22395 and 22399 of 2024 WITHOUT COSTS