A Pattabhi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 9044 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

A Pattabhi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 October, 2024

 APHC010426752024
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                   AT AMARAVATI                         [3331]
                            (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                    TUESDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER
                     TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                  PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

                       WRIT PETITION NO: 21713/2024

Between:

   1. A PATTABHI, S/O. PEDDA AGE 45 YEARS, OCC FOREST SECTION
      OFFICER RAVULAPALEM SECTION, AMALAPURAM RANGE OF
      DR. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT, AMPALAPURAM
      PRESENTLY UNDER TRAINING AT AP STATE FOREST ACADEMY
      RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

                                                               ...PETITIONER

                                     AND

   1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
      SECRETARY, ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST, SCIENCE AND
      TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI

   2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND HEAD
      OF FOREST FORCES, ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI,
                                              MANGALAGIR
      GUNTUR DISTRICT

   3. THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, RAJAHMUNDRY CIRCLE,
      RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT

   4. THE DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER, KAKINADA DIVISION, KAKINADA

                                                         ...RESPONDENT(S):

     Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased tomay be pleased to issue order, direction more particularly in the
nature of MANDAMUS declarideclaring
                                 ng the S.O. No 6/2024/E dated 22.09.2024
passed by the 4th respondent in so far as transfer of the petitioner from
                                        Page 2 of 7


Ravulapalem Section, Amalapuram             Range of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar
Konaseema Division. Amalapuram to Maredumilli Section, Madedumilli
Range of Rampachodavaram (T) Division, which is far away from the place of
employment of petitioners wife, who is a government employee, contrary to
the Clause IV. 6 of Guidelines for Transfers and Postings of Employees
issued under G.O.Ms. No. 75, Finance (HR.I.PLG. and Policy) Department,
dated 17.08.2024 as illegal, arbitrary, against to the principles of natural
justice apart from being violative Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India and consequentially direct the 4th respondent to post the petitioner at
Kakinada station or at the station nearer to Kakinada, where his wife is
working in the interest of justice and pass such

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

      Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
may be pleased to suspend the S.O. No. 16/2024/E dated 22.09.2024 passed
by the 4th respondent in so far as transfer of the petitioner from Ravulapalem
Section, Amalapuram Range of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Konaseema Division,
Amalapuram          to    Maredumilli    Section,      Madedumilli   Range    of
Rampachodavaram (T) Division pending disposal of the above writ petition in
the interest of justice and pass such

Counsel for the Petitioner:

   1. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

   1. GP FOR SERVICES I

The Court made the following:

                                        ORDER

The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

"... to issue order, direction more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring the S.O.No.6/2024/E dated 22.09.2024 passed by the 4 th respondent in so far as transfer of the petitioner from Ravulapalem Section, Amalapuram Range of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema Division, Amalapuram to Maredumilli Section, Madedumilli Range of Rampachodavaram (T) Division, which is far away from the place of employment of petitioner's wife,

who is a government employee, contrary to the Clause IV. 6 of Guidelines for Transfers and Postings of Employees issued under G.O.Ms.No.75, Finance (HR.I.PLG. and Policy) Department, dated 17.08.2024 as illegal, arbitrary, against to the principles of natural justice apart from being violative Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the 4th respondent to post the petitioner at Kakinada station or at the station nearer to Kakinada, where his wife is working in the interest of justice ..."

2. Heard Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services for Respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, Forest Section Officer was transferred by the impugned proceedings to Maredumilli Section, Maredumilli Range of Rampachodavaram (T) Division, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.75 Finance (HR.I-PLG. & POLICY) Department dated 17.08.2024. He would also submit that the petitioner's wife is working at Kakinada and the petitioner made a representation dated 27.08.2024 (Ex.P3), however, the same was not considered.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services, on instructions of the District Forest Officer, Kakinada Division vide Rc.No.1665/2024/E dated 01.10.2024, would submit that petitioner has been working in Plain area for more than 10 years in the category of Forest Beat Officer/Forest Section Officer. He would also submit that the transfer of the petitioner is as per G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024 and thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5. Now, the point for consideration is:

Does the proceedings impugned (Ex.P2) in the writ petition suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court while exercising judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?

6. As seen from the averments in the affidavit, the petitioner was appointed as Forest Beat Officer and joined duty on 24.01.2002 and he was promoted to Forest Section Officer on 12.11.2019 and posted at Ravulapalem Section, Amalapuram Range. The petitioner did not complete 5 years of stay at the present station. Petitioner's wife has been working as a Junior Assistant in the Government Polytechnic for Women, Kakinada. Before effecting the transfer, the petitioner requested 27.08.2024 choosing five near stations i.e. 1) Forest Section Officer, CBET, Coringa; 2) Forest Checking Officer, Kakinada; 3) Forest Section Officer, Social Forestry, Peddapuram of SF Ranga, Kakinada; 4) Tuni Section of Kakinada Range and 5) Flying Squad Division, Ramachandrapuram. There are vacancies nearer to Kakinada, where the petitioner's wife is working.

7. The instructions of the District Forest Officer, Kakinada Division would indicate that the petitioner was appointed as Forest Beat Officer in roster point No.1 (ST) of Scheduled Area quota. The petitioner was promoted to Forest Section Officer and posted to Ravulapalem Section, Amalapuram Range. Petitioner worked as Forest Beat Officer from 06.01.2024 to 30.05.2017 in Vontimamidi Beat, Kakinada Range (Plain area). Petitioner worked as FBO/ACO, Rajahmundry, Kakinada Range from 31.05.2017 to 11.11.2019 (Plain area). The petitioner has been working in the plain area since 06.01.2014. Thus, the petitioner completed 10 years in the plain area.

8. In pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024, the Chief Conservator of Forests, Rajahmundry issued guidelines vide Rc.No.2255/2024/M2, dated 22.08.2024 on the transfers and postings. An internal committee was constituted to affect the transfers and postings as it is essential for the Forest Department to allocate more staff to vulnerable areas. The vacancy percentage of Rampachodavaram Division is 48.20%. To prevent Ganja, and protect plantation and forest wildlife, the Forest department staff must provide their service in the agency area. The District Forest Officer, Kakinada

after considering all these aspects, transferred the petitioner to Maredumilli Section, Maredumilli Range of Rampachodavaram (T) Division.

9. In Gujarat Electricity Board Vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus:

"Transfer of a Government servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to the another is an incident of service. No Government servant or employee of public undertaking has a legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place to other is generally a condition of service and the employee has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration."

10. In Union of India Vs. H.N. Kirtania2 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:

"Transfer of a public servant made on administrative grounds or in the public interest should not be interfered with unless there are strong and pressing grounds rendering the transfer order illegal on the grounds of violation of statutory rules or grounds of malafide."

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar3, observed thus:

"4. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer Order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer Orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory Rule or on the ground of malafide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer Orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer Order is passed in violation of executive instructions or Orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the Order instead affected party should approach the higher

1989 SCR (2) 357

1989 SCR (3) 397

AIR 1991 SC 532

authorities in the Department. If the Courts continue to interfere with day-to- day transfer Orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest." (emphasis is mine)

12. In the State of M.P. and another Vs S.S.Kourav and others 4, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:

"The courts or tribunals are not appellate forums to decide on transfers of officers on administrative grounds. It is for the administration to take appropriate decisions and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by mala fides or by extraneous consideration without any factual background foundation. In this case transfer order having been issued on administrative grounds, expediency of those orders cannot be examined by the Court."

13. Of late, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sri Pubi Lombi Vs. The State of Arunachal Pradesh and Others 5 , reversed the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and upheld the order of the learned single Judge, wherein the learned single Judge declined to interfere in a transfer. The Apex Court observed thus:

"10. In view of the foregoing enunciation of law by judicial decisions of this Court, it is clear that in absence of (i) pleadings regarding mala-fide, (ii) non- joining the person against whom allegation are made, (iii) violation of any statutory provision (iv) the allegation of the transfer being detrimental to the employee who is holding a transferable post, judicial interference is not warranted. In the sequel of the said settled norms, the scope of judicial review is not permissible by the Courts in exercising of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

14. Keeping in view the expressions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the case at hand, the petitioner, in fact, made a representation dated 27.08.2024 before

(1995) 3 SCC 270

2024 0 Supreme (SC) 225

effecting transfers on the spouse's ground. As seen from the proceedings, the petitioner was transferred on administrative grounds, without expressing anything on merits, since the petitioner's wife is working at Kakinada, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024.

15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024, if the petitioner's services can be dispensed with at Maredumilli Section, Maredumilli Range of Rampachodavaram (T) Division. No costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD