Andhra Pradesh High Court; : "Transfers Without Reasons 'Arbitrary', Violate Guidelines," "Employer Must Adhere to Prescribed Procedures"
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati, Single bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti, set aside multiple transfer orders affecting office bearers of recognized employee associations, stating that the transfers were made without assigning reasons and in violation of government guidelines. The court observed, "The administrative authority, while exercising jurisdiction and effecting transfers in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024, shall adhere to the guidelines/instructions prescribed therein."
Since the issue involved in all the writ petitions was the same, the court disposed of the petitions by way of a common order. The writ petitions were filed challenging the transfer proceedings issued by the respondent authorities, arguing that the transfers were contrary to G.O.Ms.No.75 issued by the Finance Department on August 17, 2024. The petitioners, who were office bearers of registered associations, contended that the transfer orders lacked justification and were arbitrary.
The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the transfers were contrary to Clause IV (11 & 12) of G.O.Ms.No.75 and that the office bearers had complied with Clause V (5) (b & c) by informing the Principal Secretary to the Government, General Administration, about their election on August 28, 2024. The petitioners contended that, in the absence of separate statutory rules, the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.75 had statutory force. The petitioners cited judicial precedents, including Mr. Chandru H.N. v. State of Karnataka and Sk. Nausad Rahaman v. Union of India, asserting that the executive must adhere to its own guidelines while making transfer decisions.
The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services, opposing the petitions, contended that the transfers were made following administrative guidelines and that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any legal right to remain at their postings. The respondent argued that office bearers of associations must serve all employees and that transfers did not affect their ability to perform their duties. The state relied on precedents such as S.L. Abbas v. Union of India and B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka, asserting that courts should not interfere with transfers unless mala fide intent or procedural irregularities were evident.
The court examined whether the transfer orders suffered from arbitrariness and whether the respondent authorities failed to adhere to G.O.Ms.No.75. The court noted that G.O.Ms.No.75 was issued by the government under Article 162 of the Constitution of India and prescribed specific guidelines for the transfer and posting of employees. The court recorded, "The Government is committed to the welfare of its employees and seeks to promote work-life balance while ensuring efficient and effective service delivery to the citizens."
The guidelines outlined in Clause IV of G.O.Ms.No.75 required that employees who had completed five years of continuous stay at a station be transferred. However, Clause V (5) (a) created an exception for office bearers of recognized employee associations, stating that they should not be transferred until they had completed three terms or nine years of service at a particular station. Clause V (5) (d) permitted transfers of such office bearers on administrative grounds, provided that reasons were recorded. The court observed that "in none of the orders of transfer, hardly any reasons are assigned."
The court further examined the legal status of guidelines issued under Article 162 of the Constitution. Relying on previous judgments, including Paluru Ramakrishnaiah v. Union of India and North West Railway v. Chanda Devi, the court recorded that such guidelines have statutory force in the absence of specific legislative provisions. The Karnataka High Court, in Mr. Chandru H.N. v. State of Karnataka, also held that government orders issued under executive power are enforceable when no separate statutory rules exist.
Considering the facts of the case, the court found that the transfer orders affecting the petitioners were issued without assigning reasons and were in violation of the guidelines prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.75. The court stated, "The failure of the employer to adhere to the guidelines, which prescribe the procedure, amounts to arbitrariness and thus, violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
Regarding the petitioners seeking transfers from Integrated Tribal Development Agency (ITDA) areas, the court examined Clause IV (11 & 12) of G.O.Ms.No.75, which prescribed eligibility for transfer from ITDA areas. The court recorded that these provisions did not create an absolute right to transfer but only prescribed conditions under which employees could seek relocation. It further observed that "the employer is the best person to place an employee at a particular place." The court held that, in the absence of any infringement of fundamental or statutory rights, interference was not warranted.
Based on the above findings, the court allowed W.P.Nos.21204, 21206, 21210, 22151, 22644, 22647, and 21535 of 2024, setting aside the transfer orders affecting office bearers of employee associations. However, W.P.Nos.21865, 22098, 22395, and 22399 of 2024, which involved challenges related to ITDA postings, were dismissed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, A. Rajendra Babu, Sodum Anvesha, Narra Srinivasa Rao, Bethapudi Manoj Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondents: R.S. Manidhar Pingali (Assistant Government Pleader for Services), Umesh Chandra P.V.G., Bhargava Raju Manthina, Advocates.
Case Title: S.V.K. Kumar & Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
Neutral Citation: APHC010416842024
Case Number: W.P.Nos.21204, 21206, 21210, 21535, 21865, 22098, 22151, 22395, 22399, 22644, 22647 of 2024
Bench: Justice Subba Reddy Satti
[Read/Download order]
