Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
G Ravindra Babu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 13 February, 2025
APHC010461122024
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
WRIT PETITION NO: 23889/2024
Between:
G Ravindra Babu ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following:
ORDER
The above writ petition is filed impugning the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide CCST'S Ref.No.DXZ(1)/617/2024 dated 20.09.2024 (Ex.P1), transferring the petitioner, Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST) from the office of Assistant Commissioner (ST), Bhavanipuram Circle-I Division, Vijayawada to the office of Joint Commissioner (ST), Vijayawada-III Division, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.75 Finance (HR.I-PLG. & POLICY) Department, Page 2 of 10 dated 17.08.2024 & G.O.Ms.No.170 Revenue (Commercial Taxes) Department dated 22.08.2024.
2. a) In the affidavit, it was pleaded that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant on 21.03.1998 through APPSC, later promoted as Senior Assistant in the year 2011, further promoted as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer in the year 2014 and thereafter promoted as Deputy Assistant Commissioner in the year 2018. During the transfer counselling in the year 2022, the petitioner was transferred and posted to the office of Assistant Commissioner (ST), Bhavanipuram Circle, Vijayawada-1 Division. The petitioner is a visually challenged person and he was appointed against roster point No.6 visually challenged quota. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.75 Finance (HR.I- PLG. & POLICY) Department, dated 17.08.2024 framing guidelines for transfers and postings of employees. In pursuance of the said G.O., the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.170 Revenue (Commercial Taxes) Department dated 22.08.2024 prescribing guidelines/instructions.
b) Be that at it may, by the proceedings impugned (Ex.P1) in the writ petition, the petitioner was transferred. After the issuance of the transfer order (Ex.P1) the petitioner made a representation dated 24.08.2024 to the 2nd respondent to exempt him from transfers, as per the guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.170 dated 17.08.2024 and also enclosed the medical certificate issued by the APVVP. The petitioner has also not made any request seeking transfer. Despite being a visually impaired employee, the petitioner competed alongside regular employees and brought in significant revenue to the Government through his special efforts, whereby he was given the Best Employee Award from the Krishna District Collector in the year 2021. In the first six months of the Page 3 of 10 financial year 2024-2025 alone, he generated nearly 1.7 crores of revenue. Hence, the writ petition.
3. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 2nd respondent. While not disputing G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024 and G.O.Ms.No.170 dated 22.08.2024, it was pleaded that the request of petitioner to retain him in the office of Assistant Commissioner (ST), Bhavanipuram was considered and therefore, by giving preference, the petitioner was posted as Manager in the office of Joint Commissioner (ST), Vijayawada-III Division of Vijayawada Town. The transfer of the petitioner is effected from one office to another office and not beyond the town. The petitioner joined duty in the transferee place on 23.09.2024. The Government imposed a ban on transfers with effect from 23.09.2024. The department has not shown any discrimination towards the petitioner and eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Heard Smt.Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services for respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services for respondents reiterated the contentions as per the averments made in the affidavit and counter affidavit respectively.
6. Now, the point for consideration is:
Whether the transfer of petitioner vide CCST'S Ref.No.DXZ(1)/617/2024 dated 20.09.2024 (Ex.P1) is legally sustainable?
Page 4 of 107. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.75 Finance (HR.I-PLG. & POLICY) Department, dated 17.08.2024 framing guidelines for transfers and postings of employees. In pursuance of the said G.O., the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.170 Revenue (Commercial Taxes) Department dated 22.08.2024 prescribing guidelines/instructions, while lifting the ban on the transfers.
8. Para No.I of the G.O.Ms.No.170 dated 22.08.2024 deals with principles for transfers and postings. Para No.II General Guidelines and Para No.III deals with the procedures for transfers and postings. Clause No.5 of para No.I deal with the transfer of employees other than those who have completed 5 years of stay at a station and on personal requests. Clause No.9 of para No.I prescribe preferences. Clause No.10 of para No.I which is relevant is extracted below:
10. The visually challenged employees are exempt from transfers, except when a specific request is made. Subject to the availability of a clear vacancy, these categories of employees may be posted as far as possible at a place of their choice.
9. Thus, as seen from Clause No.10 of para No.1, it creates an embargo on the transfer of employees in that category. Preferences under Clause No.9 will be acted upon if the employee in the category requests for transfer, but not otherwise.
10. Para No.III prescribes the procedures for transfers and postings. All the employees who completed 5 years of tenure in a station and employees seeking request transfers shall apply through the online CTD portal. After submitting the online application, the applicant shall download the PDF format (including all the supporting documents) and Page 5 of 10 submit the signed copy to the respective controlling officer, who will forward it to the designated authority. The transfers will be determined based on performance, as assessed by a designated Committee. At the Head Office level, a Committee will evaluate the performance of Assistant Commissioners (ST) and Deputy Assistant Commissioners (ST), while at the Divisional level, a separate Committee will assess the performance of Goods and Service Tax Officers (GSTOs) and officers of lower cadres.
11. Ex.P1 the transfer proceedings indicate the transfer of 13 employees in the cadre of Deputy Assistant Commissioners (ST). It was mentioned that the transfer of employees was ordered under request. However, no supporting document is filed in the counter affidavit, despite a specific pleading in the writ affidavit that he did not submit any application seeking transfer. In Para-6 of the affidavit, the petitioner specifically pleaded that he has not submitted any transfer request and has not even chosen any option. Thus, the authority despite the guidelines and even without any request made by the petitioner affected the transfer of the petitioner. Thus, the transfer of the petitioner suffers from arbitrariness.
12. The scope of judicial review in transfer matters is very limited. Unless the petitioner pleads and proves that the transfer was effected contrary to the guidelines, and suffers from arbitrariness and malafides, normally, the Courts will not interfere with transfers. An employee cannot claim absolute immunity from the transfer when the post he/she occupies is transferable. For that matter, the executive instructions or administrative directions do not confer any indefeasible right to claim transfer or posting in favour of the employee. The transfer of an Page 6 of 10 employee from one place to place will not affect the service condition of the employee, except the place of functioning.
13. Whether failure to follow the guidelines issued by the 1st respondent would amount to arbitrariness?
14. The 1st respondent since, issued guidelines regarding transfers and postings, the Heads of the Department of 1st respondent are bound by those guidelines. The transfers should be made in adherence to the guidelines, but not at the whims and fancies of the HODs. An administrative authority, who purports to act by its regulation must be bound by the regulations.
15. In E.P. Royappa Vs. State of T.N.1, the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:
"... The basic principle which, therefore, informs both Articles 14 and 16 is equality and inhibition against discrimination. Now, what is the content and reach of this great equalising principle? It is a founding faith, to use the words of Bose. J., "a way of life", and it must not be subjected to a narrow pedantic or lexicographic approach. We cannot countenance any attempt to truncate its all-embracing scope and meaning, for to do so would be to violate its activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be "cribbed, cabined and confined"
within traditional and doctrinaire limits. From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact 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.
1(1974) 4 SCC 3 Page 7 of 10 Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment ..."
16. In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi 2 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:
"... ... It must therefore now be taken to be well settled that what Article 14 strikes at is arbitrariness because any action that is arbitrary, must necessarily involve negation of equality. ... ... Wherever therefore there is arbitrariness in State action whether it be of the legislature or of the executive or of an "authority" under Article 12, Article 14 immediately springs into action and strikes down such State action. In fact, the concept of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness pervades the entire constitutional scheme and is a golden thread which runs through the whole of the fabric of the Constitution."
17. In the case at hand, the 2nd respondent violated the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.170 dated 22.08.2024, to a great extent and issued the proceedings impugned. The proceedings are, thus, arbitrary and are liable to be set aside.
18. 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 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 2 (1981) 1 SCC 722 Page 8 of 10 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 to restitute the injured is our overarching constitutional purpose. Manoj Kumar Vs. Union of India3.
19. 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 India4; Nagpur Improvement Trust Vs. Yadaorao Jagannath Kumbhare 5; North West Railway Vs. Chanda Devi 6 and Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Rabindranath Choubey 7 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, have a statutory force.
20. The Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Mr.Chandru H.N. Vs. State of Karnataka and others (supra-1), while answering a reference where the guidelines of the Government Order No.DPAR 4 STR 2001, Bangalore, dated 22.11.2001 relating to the transfer of the Government servants, which has come into force from 22.11.2001 have any statutory force or not, answered the reference in affirmative. The Full Bench held that in the absence of any rules providing for regulating the transfer and providing guidelines therein, the executive order issued in 3 (2024) 3 SCC 563 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 163 4 AIR 1990 SC 166 5 (1999) 8 SCC 99 6 (2008) 2 SCC 108 7 (2020) 18 SCC 71 Page 9 of 10 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.
21. In the light of above pronouncements, this Court is of the considered opinion that the guidelines framed under G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024 and G.O.Ms.No.170 dated 22.08.2024, for transfers and postings of employees, have statutory force.
22. The contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services, that the transfer was made within the city and hence, it does not amount to transfer, this Court is not persuaded with the said submission. The judgments cited by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, though dealt with transfer issues, one should be cautious about the facts and ratio in each case.
23. In Abdul Kayoom Vs. CIT 8 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed thus:
" ... ... 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) [(1960) 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 8 AIR 1962 SC 680 : 1961 SCC OnLine SC 244 Page 10 of 10 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".
24. Given the discussion supra, the Writ Petition is Allowed by setting aside the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide CCST'S Ref.No.DXZ(1)/617/2024 dated 20.09.2024 (Ex.P1). The respondent authority shall restore the petitioner to the source place from the transferee place forthwith. However, no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD