Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

G Shiva Shankar Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 17 June, 2025

APHC010283762025
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI             [3506]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

           TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE
              TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
                                   PRESENT
   THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN
                     WRIT PETITION NO: 14294/2025
Between:
G. Shiva Shankar Reddy                                            ...PETITIONER
                                       AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others                     ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
   1. VADAPALLI RAMESH
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
   1. GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following:


ORDER:

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

"to issue writ or order, more particularly, one in writ of MANDAMUS by declaring the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for transfer by granting priority of spouse case in terms of Para 4 (vi) of the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms. No.23, dated 15.05.2025, though his wife is working as Audiometry Technician at District Hospital, Nandyal on the illegal ground that she is working on contract basis is totally illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and contrary to Rule 4 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and also challenging the validity of the impugned proceedings issued in G.O.Rt.No.344, dated 31.05.2025, publishing transfer guidelines for transferring the Ministerial Staff alone who completed 2 CGR, J.

3 to 5 years of service in a particular administrative unit/office targeting only Ministerial Staff working in District Units as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the general transfer guidelines issued by the 1st respondent through G.O.Ms.No.23, dated 15.05.2025, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for transfer under spouse priority and to pass...."

2. Heard Sri Vadapalli Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents.

3. Petitioner is working as Senior Assistant in the office of the District Coordinator of Hospital Services at Nandyal. He has been working in the said post since 15.06.2013. Petitioner's wife is also working as Audiometry Technician on contract basis at Government General Hospital, Nandyal since 12.10.2022. In pursuance to the transfers undertaken in terms of guidelines issued under G.O.Ms. No.23 Finance (HR.I-PLG. & Policy) Department, dated 15.05.2025, petitioner has requested for preference on spouse category in terms of Clause 4(vi). However, the same has been rejected for the reason that petitioner's wife is not a regular government employee rather she works on contract basis besides that since petitioner is working at present station for almost 11 years and 11 months, he falls under longstanding employee category, therefore, he needs to be transferred to some other station.

CGR, J.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned rejection of preferential consideration on spouse category on the ground that spouse working on contract basis is erroneous in as much as she works with Government and not any private institution and the very purpose of giving such preference would be defeated. He has placed reliance on the order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.36439 of 2022, dated 09.11.2022, wherein this Court in similar circumstances directed the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner therein for posting in a place closer to where his spouse was working.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the guidelines provided under G.O.Ms.No.23, dated 15.05.2025, are very clear and unambiguous. Unless both husband and wife are government employees, they cannot claim the preferential treatment of being posted at one station or station nearer to each other. Therefore, respondents have rightly rejected the case of the petitioner. However, he does not refute the factum of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.36439 of 2022.

CGR, J.

6. The guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.23, dated 15.05.2025, in particular, Clause 4(vi) specifically provides that both husband and wife are to be government employees. A plain reading of the said Clause shows that both of them have to be government employees meaning thereby they have to be regular employees. This Court cannot supplement or read something more into the clause and convey that even contract employee also requires to be considered for the purpose of preference in as much as the tenure of contract employee varies from person to person and in case the contract does not extend, it cannot be said that both husband and wife are working for them to claim the preferential treatment.

7. Be that as it may, this Court in W.P.No.36439 of 2022 has already taken a lenient view and directed the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner therein to accommodate in a nearest station, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present writ petition in the same lines.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of directing the respondents to consider the transfer of the petitioner to a nearest station subject to availability of vacancy. No order as to costs. 5

CGR, J.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed.

_____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:17.06.2025.

cs