N.G.Rajalakshmi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2394 AP

                                1




        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

        WRIT PETITION Nos.11634 and 11796 of 2021

COMMON ORDER:

        These two Writ Petitions are part and parcel of the

batch of Writ Petitions which are filed and which are being

disposed off today. In that batch, this Court has held that

the conditions in G.O.Ms.No.54 and the order of the Division

Bench    in   W.A.No.80    of   2021    and   Batch   should     be

scrupulously followed.


        The difference in these two cases is that the petitioners

are teachers, who are retiring within the next two years.

During the pendency of the earlier proceedings before this

Court the petitioners have crossed 58 years of age. The batch

of Writ Appeals have been disposed of by a judgment, dated

01.04.2021, in W.A. No.80 of 2021 and Batch. The learned

Advocate General appearing for the State has submitted on

instructions that certain procedures will be followed for

conducting the transfers of these teachers.        The same were

recorded in para 20 of the said judgment. In para 31 of the

said Judgment it is reiterated that the respondents should

scrupulously follow the submissions and concessions of the

learned Advocate General. One of the important concessions

made is that the teachers who have completed more than 8

years of service will be transferred based upon web based

counselling and as per the procedure stipulated in

G.O.Ms.No.54, dated 12.10.2020.

The petitioners in this case rely upon guideline No.2 (i)

(b) of the said G.O.Ms.No.54. It states that the teachers, who

are going to retire within two years from 1st of October of the

year in which the transfers should be taken up, shall not be

transferred unless the incumbent requests for such transfer.

Relying upon this clause learned counsel for the petitioners

argues that since the petitioners in these two cases are

retiring within two years the provision should be read in

favour of the petitioners and they should not be transferred

from their current place of post.

In reply to this learned Government Pleader for

services, who has argued the batch of matters, also makes his

submissions in this matter. He argues that the Writ Petitions

and Writ Appeals were dismissed and that the petitioners

cannot take advantage of the delay caused by the pendency of

the matters. According to him the date of the G.O. is the

crucial date and the petitioners who have completed 8 years

etc., are liable to be transferred. He argues that two-year rule

mentioned in guideline No. 2 (1) (b) of G.O.Ms.No.54 should

be read as applicable to the teachers who fit within that rule

in the year 2020 only (year of the G.O and year of the

transfer) and that the same cannot be extended to this batch

of petitioners.

This Court is of the opinion that this is the simple

issue that arises for consideration.

Admittedly, all the petitioners as on date are within two

years of their retirement. This is not in dispute. In

W.P.No.11634 of 2021 there are four petitioners and in

W.P.No.11796 of 2021 there is one petitioner. Reading the

said rule, this Court is of the opinion that it is an exception to

the general rule of transfers giving a special concession to the

people who have rendered years of service to retire in the last

place of their posting so that the family and the incumbent

are not upset or put to any difficulty due to the transfer

before the retirement / superannuation. Similar provisions

are found in many other departments also.

This Court is of the opinion that such a rule should be

interpreted keeping in mind the purpose for which it is

made.Considering the fact that there are only five petitioners

in all and the rule is intended to give some security and

prevent the disruption of family etc., this Court is of the

opinion that the benefit of guideline No.2(i) (b) should be

extended to the petitioners. It is also a fact that in the batch

of Writ Petitions, which are being disposed of along with these

cases, this Court has found that the actions of the

respondents-State are also contrary to the submissions made

and recorded by the Division Bench. This Court does not

wish to apportion the blame or even blame one party as

taking advantage of the disposal of the Writ and the Writ

Appeal. Considering the fact that this rule is purely in the

nature of a benevolent guideline a liberal but purposive

interpretation is given and petitioners are directed not to be

transferred in view of guideline 2 (i) (b) since they are retiring

within the next two years.

With the above observations the Writ Petitions are

allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending,

if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J Date:14.07.2021.

Ssv