Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Nyapathy Vijay has directed the respondent authorities to conduct fresh counselling for transfers in erstwhile Kurnool and Krishna Districts. The court held that the transfers in these districts were affected in deviation from the guidelines laid down in G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 12.06.2025 and therefore required reconsideration. The court ordered that the process be conducted in accordance with both G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 15.05.2025 and G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 12.06.2025. It dismissed the petitions relating to other districts, finding no sufficient evidence to vitiate the transfers therein.

The petitioners, appointed as Village Agricultural Assistants Grade-II in 2019 through DSC, were posted at various Gram Panchayats. The state undertook rationalisation through G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 25.01.2025, G.O.Ms.No.3 dated 10.04.2025, and G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 17.05.2025, culminating in G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 12.06.2025, which set out principles for positioning and transfers.

Also Read: Supreme Court Clarifies GST Jurisdiction | Central Authority Can Issue Summons As “Not Initiation Of Proceedings” Under S.6(2)(b) CGST Act

Following G.O.Ms.No.5, respondent authorities prepared a list of long-standing employees based on station seniority, using date of birth as the criterion. In Kurnool District, 445 candidates were identified for transfer. The petitioners gave their preferences as per the transfer policy, but were transferred to unopted locations, allegedly due to recommendations from public representatives.

Petitioners contended that the process ignored the seniority list and was influenced by letters from MLAs and MPs. They argued that although they did not object to being transferred, it must be done in line with the guidelines to ensure transparency. An additional ground was raised regarding the jurisdiction of the District Agricultural Officer in Krishna District to issue transfer orders.

The respondents argued that the transfers complied with the policy, noting that all employees had joined in 2019 and thus had equal station seniority. They stated that there was no bar on considering recommendations from public representatives if consistent with the policy, and denied any mala fides or violations.

The issues before the court were: (1) the scope of interference when transfers violate guidelines, and (2) whether such transfers are vitiated by recommendations from public representatives.

The court observed that "transfers issued in public interest and administration cannot be interfered even if the transfer guidelines are violated" unless in violation of mandatory statutory rules or tainted by mala fides. Citing Shilpi Bose (Mrs) and others v. State of Bihar, it noted that transfers made for public interest and administrative reasons should not be disturbed.

Referring to Major General J.K. Bansal v. Union of India, the court stated: "The courts should be extremely slow in interfering with an order of transfer of such category of persons and unless an exceptionally strong case is made out, no interference should be made."

It recorded that the purpose of transfer policies, formulated initially with employee associations and later issued as executive instructions, is to prevent unfettered transfer powers and ensure accountability.

The court noted that G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 15.05.2025 allowed departments to have their own guidelines, provided they did not conflict with it, and that G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 12.06.2025 adopted principles akin to G.O.Ms.No.23. Clause 7 mandated transfers after five years at a station, prohibited postings within native Mandals, and gave preference to certain categories, while Clause 8 required transparent, time-bound processes.

It found that in this cadre, all employees were appointed in 2019, making it the first transfer, thus requiring greater transparency. The Kurnool list of 454 candidates was prepared based on date of birth. Counselling was conducted on 29 and 30 June 2025, but transfer orders for 455 candidates were issued the same day, with a similar process in Krishna District affecting 475 functionaries.

The court recorded that letters from public representatives recommended transfers and specified postings, with exceptionally high numbers in Kurnool and Krishna. Citing Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P., it stated: "Even if the allegation... is correct that he was transferred on the recommendation of an MLA, that by itself would not vitiate the transfer order... There can be no hard-and-fast rule that every transfer at the instance of an MP or MLA would be vitiated."

It further noted Sri Pubi Lombi v. The State of Arunachal Pradesh, observing that while occasional recommendations may be permissible, large-scale recommendations determining postings undermine the guidelines. The court found that in Kurnool and Krishna, about 115 and 102 functionaries respectively were transferred as per such letters.

It concluded that such mass-scale postings at the instance of public representatives, without reference to G.O.Ms.No.5, amounted to abdication of duty by the appointing authorities, giving an impression of parallel administration. The attempt to ensure transparency was not implemented in these districts.

Also Read: Never Lived Together | Telangana High Court Says No Shared Household No Domestic Relationship | Quashes Domestic Violence Case Against USA-Based Sister-In-Law

The court directed that the writ petitions concerning erstwhile Kurnool and Krishna Districts be allowed. It ordered the respondent authorities to conduct fresh counselling in these districts in terms of G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 15.05.2025 and G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 12.06.2025, and to effect transfers accordingly.

It dismissed petitions from other districts, finding no material to substantiate mala fides or large-scale recommendations vitiating transfers.

On the issue of jurisdiction, it rejected the contention against the District Agricultural Officer in Krishna District, noting amendments in G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 30.01.2020 and G.O.Ms.No.31 dated 26.02.2022 which designated the officer as the appointing authority.

The court ordered that there be no order as to costs and closed any pending applications.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Sri V. Ramesh, Sri V. Maheswar Reddy, Sri Harinath Reddy Somagutta, Ms. Chukka Harika, Sri D. Prudhvi Teja

Case Title: Petitioners vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Case Number: W.P.Nos.16968, 16981, 16982, 16984, 16986, 16987, 16997, 16999, 17002, 17004, 17050, 17541, 17549, 17810, 17852, 17864, 17865, 17872, 17873, 17878, 17882, 17990, 18072, 18126, 18750, 18846 of 2025

Bench: Justice Nyapathy Vijay