Chaduvula Malati vs State Of Ap
2021 Latest Caselaw 1351 AP

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                    WRIT PETITION NO.5299 of 2021

ORDER:

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India seeking the following relief:-

"....to issue a writ of Mandamus, declaring the order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.9/A1/A3/2021, dated 05.02.2021 in rejecting the petitioner's appeal by denying the service points acquired by the petitioner from the previous station i.e., M.P.U.P. School, RCH Agraharam, G. Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam Disrict w.e.f 19.08.2009 to 09.08.2017 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to compute and award the previous station points to the petitioner for the service rendered by the petitioner in M.P.U.P. School, RCH Agraharam, G.Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District w.e.f 19.08.2009 to 09.08.2017 on part with others and allot suitable place in G.Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District nearby petitioner's spouse working place or Rajam/Regidi Amadalavalasa/ Ponduru Mandal by retransfer..."

2. The petitioner was appointed on 17.10.2002 as Secondary

Grade Teacher (SGT) in MPUP School, Nadimivalasa Village,

G. Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District in the year 19.08.2009

and from there again transferred to M.P.U.P. School,

Mettavalasa, G.Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District on

09.08.2017, in view of general transfers effected in the

year 2020.

3. In view of re-apportionment to the post, the petitioner was

transferred to the present place i.e., MPPS Dibbameedapeta,

Santhabommali Mandal, Srikakulam District. As per the

transfer guidelines/rules, the petitioner made an application

through online, but as per the instructions of the respondents

the computer system is accepting only the present station points

from 09.08.2017 to 01.10.2020 as there is no program to

calculate the previous service points at MPUP RCH Agraharam,

since the petitioner's transfer was on administrative

grounds/rationalization of posts. As such, the petitioner was

awarded only 28.4179 points (Station Seniority Points : 9.4390 +

Service points : 8.9789 + Re-apportionment points : 5 + Spouse

points : 5 = 28.4179) instead of 51.5083 points, which is not

inclusive of the previous station points.

4. On account of failure to award points for the previous

station, the petitioner suffered a lot and made a representation

to the 3rd respondent on 21.01.2021 requesting time to award

total service points by taking into consideration of previous

station service points of MPUP School, RCH Agraharam from

19.08.2009 to 09.08.2017. But, the appeal was not considered

by the 3rd respondent in accordance with law and the previous

station service points were not taken into consideration for

awarding points to transfer the petitioner to his opted station.

Therefore, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned order vide

Rc.No.9/A1/A3/2021, dated 05.02.2021, rejecting petitioner's

appeal without assigning proper reasons, which is illegal and

arbitrary and requested to set aside the same, consequently

direct the respondents to award previous station points to the

petitioner and afford an opportunity to participate in transfer

counselling.

5. During hearing, Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel

for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the main

petition, whereas learned Government Pleader for Services-III

opposed the petition, while supporting the order impugned in

this writ petition.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner filed an appeal under Guideline

19 of G.O.Ms.No.54, School Education (Services.II) Department,

dated 12.10.2020. Against the order in the appeal, a revision is

available under the statutory guidelines issued in exercise of

power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Guideline

20 of G.O.Ms.No.54, dated 12.10.2020 is extracted as

hereunder:-

20. Revision.

(i) The Director of School Education may either suo motu or an application received from any person aggrieved by the orders of the Transfer Committee may call for and examine the records in respect of any proceedings of transfer to satisfy himself about its regularity, legality or propriety. If, in any case, it appears to him that any such proceedings should be revised, modified, annulled or reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass order accordingly or remand the case with any direction so as to rectify any violation of guidelines or discrepancy. Such orders shall be implemented by the authority concerned;

(ii) The Director of School Education may stay the implementation of any such proceedings, pending exercise of its powers under Guideline 20(i) above;

(iii) Revision exercise and issue of orders shall be completed within 4 weeks from the date of issue of the transfer orders. No extension shall be permissible.

7. Thus, the revisional authority vested with all powers that

vested on the Courts that conferred on the Court including grant

of stay or suspension of the orders passed by the authority.

When the petitioner is entitled to file appropriate application for

revision under Guideline 20 of G.O.Ms.No.54, dated 12.10.2020

aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority under Guideline

19 of G.O.Ms.No.54, dated 12.10.2020 this Court normally

would not entertain the petitioner under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

8. In the recent judgment Genpact India Private Limited v.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another1 the

Division Bench of the Apex Court held that, when a statutory

remedy is available under the statute, the Court would not

normally entertain the writ petition against assessment order.

The Apex Court finally concluded that, if the submission is

accepted, every time the dispute will be required to be taken up

in proceedings such as a petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution, which normally would not be entertained in case of

any disputed questions of fact or concerning factual aspects of

the matter. The assessee may thus, not only lose a remedy of

having the matter considered on factual facets of the matter but

would also stand deprived of regular channels of challenges

available to it under the hierarchy of fora available under the

Act.

(2019) 311 CTR (SC) 737

9. In view of the judgment referred above, when an

alternative remedy is available to the petitioner this Court

cannot exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India to interfere with the administrative orders passed by the

authorities.

10. Applying the principle laid down in the above judgment,

I find that it is not a fit case to warrant any interference by this

Court, while exercising power under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, while relegating the petitioner to file

appropriate revision under Guideline 20 of G.O.Ms.No.54, dated

12.10.2020.

11. With the above direction, this writ petition is dismissed, at

the stag of admission. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any shall

stand closed.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Date: 04.03.2021

IS

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

WRIT PETITION NO.5299 of 2021

Date: 04.03.2021

IS