Narem Sanyasi Rao vs The Govt Of Ap
2022 Latest Caselaw 4687 AP

         HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI


                    Writ Petition No.19555 of 2022
Order:

      This Writ Petition is filed questioning the impugned proceedings

dated 30.06.2022 issued by the first respondent, as illegal and arbitrary.

The case of the petitioner is that while he was working as Municipal

Assistant Engineer in the second respondent Corporation, in the year 2014

he was transferred to the third respondent Corporation and he rendered

7 ½ years of service at Vizianagaram; in the seniority list, out of 29

Municipal Assistant Engineers of Zone-I, petitioner is at Serial No.3 and

hence his case has to be considered on priority basis; petitioner is also

suffering from certain ailments and hence he requested for being posted

at the second respondent office; without considering the request of the

petitioner, one person by name N. Srinu, Municipal Assistant Engineer

working at Vizianagaram was transferred to the second respondent's office

at Visakhapatnam and the petitioner was transferred to the fourth

respondent's office at Parvathipuram; the said Srinu has completed only 4

years of his tenure at Vizianagaram and he did not request for a transfer;

there are some more vacancies available at the office of the second

respondent at Visakhapatnam; hence, the Writ Petition.

Learned Government Pleader has produced written instructions of

the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health, Tadepalli, Guntur district through

letter dated 27.07.2022, wherein it is stated that the total strength of

Municipal Assistant Engineers available at the second respondent office is

58 and there are 22 vacancies and that there are vacancies in other

Municipalities also outside the GVMC, Visakhapatnam and in order to fill up

the vacancies in other Municipalities located under Zone-I consisting of

Srikakulam, Vizianagaram and Visakhapatnam districts, petitioner was

posted to fourth respondent office; the request of the petitioner is not

feasible for consideration as 36 Municipal Assistant Engineers are already

working in GVMC, Visakhapatnam. It is also stated that Parvathpuram

Municipality is one of the choices opted by the petitioner.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that one

person by name N. Srinu is posted to the second respondent office, even

though he did not complete 5 years of service cannot be gone into by this

Court as according to the transfer guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.116,

Finance (HR.I-PLG. & POLICY) Department, dated 07.06.2022, the

transfers on administrative grounds can also be made even before the

period of 5 years and if a person completes 5 years at a station he has to

invariably be transferred.

The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is

that, as the petitioner stands at Serial No.3 in the seniority list, his case

has to be considered on priority basis. The seniority list is not the basis

for transfer in any organization and even according to the guidelines

issued for transfer.

The third contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that

the petitioner is suffering from certain ailments, but as seen from the

representation dated 10.06.2022 made by the petitioner, it is only stated

that he requests transfer on health grounds without specifying what the

health problem is. In the said GO, particularly certain categories of health

issues which will be given priority for transfer is mentioned and the

petitioner does not say that he comes to one of such category.

Apart from that, petitioner does not dispute the fact that the fourth

respondent's office is one of the options exercised by him.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in Kendriya

Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Damodar Prasad Pandey1, held that if the

transfer order is vitiated by mala fides or in violation of the guidelines, the

same can be interfered with by the Courts and that the employee cannot

be transferred as a punitive measure. But, in the present case, petitioner

could not show the violation of any of the guidelines or attributed any

mala fides.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light

of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of the fact that

the petitioner could not demonstrate violation of transfer guidelines issued

through G.O.Ms.No.116, Finance (HR.I-PLG. & POLICY) Department,

dated 07.06.2022, this Court sees no ground to interfere with the

impugned transfer proceeding. However, if the petitioner files any

representation, the competent authority is directed to examine the same

and take appropriate decision in the matter.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no

order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending

in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

_____________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J Date:27.07.2022 Nsr

2004(12) SCC 299

HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Writ Petition No.19555 of 2022

Date:27.07.2022 Nsr