Telangana High Court
B.Emmaniyelu vs The State Of Telangana on 4 February, 2021
Bench: M.S.Ramachandra Rao, T.Vinod Kumar
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.21317 OF 2020
O R D E R:
(Per Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao)
Pursuant to a Recruitment Notification of 2011 issued by the then
Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, the petitioner was selected
and appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer in Irrigation and CAD
Department of the then composite State of Andhra Pradesh in Zone-V
which is presently part of the new State of Telangana.
2. The composite State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated into
residuary State of Andhra Pradesh and new State of Telangana under the
A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014 with effect from 02.06.2014.
3. A Circular Memo No.9940/SPF-MC/2015 dt.07.08.2017 was
issued by both State Governments providing for inter-State transfer of
Government employees between both States in the following categories:
A. Inter-State transfer of spouses.
B. Mutual transfer of local cadre employees, i.e.,
District/ Zonal/ Multi Zonal cadre employees, and
C. Mutual transfer of all State Cadre Employees where the
final allocation has been notified by the Central
Government.
4. Through an application submitted on 28.08.2017, the petitioner
sought a mutual transfer with Smt. D.K. Swathi, an Assistant Executive
Engineer, who was willing for inter-State transfer from the Government
of Andhra Pradesh to the Government of Telangana.
5. On 19.03.2018 through Memo No.8284/Ser.I(1)/2017 (AEEM)-3,
the Irrigation and CAD (Services.I) Department, State of Telangana
rejected it quoting Para 6(g) of the above Circular stating that both
employees are having same local status, i.e., State of Andhra Pradesh.
6. Without assailing the same, the petitioner has now filed this Writ
Petition contending that his spouse Smt. A.Shanti was working as Junior
Lecturer in HCM Junior College for Girls (Aided), Ongole falling in the
residuary State of Andhra Pradesh; that Para 6(g) of the Circular Memo,
which dealt with request transfer on spouse grounds, had provided that
only one spouse will be transferred to other State where the spouse is
working on regular basis in the State Government subject to condition
that one of the spouses must be local to the State to which transfer is
sought, and that such transfers were restricted to State Government
employees only; but the portion of Para 6(g) confining it only to State
Government employees was held to be bad in law by a Division Bench
of this Court in the order dt.12.10.2018 passed in W.P.Nos.14006 and
14062 of 2018, and the Division Bench directed that the benefit of the
Circular Memo be given to State Government employees whose spouses
may even be employed in the service of Central Government/ Central
Government Public Sector Undertakings/ Universities/ Local Bodies/
Scheduled Banks/ State Government Institutions etc., also.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after this
Judgment was delivered on 12.10.2018, the petitioner ought to have been
given another chance to seek transfer on spouse ground as he would then
be entitled to be transferred to the State of Andhra Pradesh where his
spouse was employed.
8. Sri P.Govind Reddy, learned Special Counsel for the State of
Andhra Pradesh appearing for respondents 2, 4 and 6 however contends
that the initial application for inter-State transfer made by the petitioner
on 28.08.2017 was not on spouse ground, but it was on mutual transfer
basis and after the same is rejected on 19.03.2018, the petitioner is trying
to take advantage of the order dt.12.10.2018 in W.P.Nos.14006 and
14062 of 2018 in the year 2020; that as per Para 6(a) of the above
Circular Memo dt.07.08.2017, inter-State transfer request should be
made within one month from 07.08.2017 and such a request made 3½
years after 07.08.2017, cannot be entertained.
9. He further contended that the petitioner was however permitted by
the State Government of Telangana through Memo dt.03.12.2019 for
inter-State deputation on spouse ground for an initial period of 3 years
and that he is currently working in Water Resource Department of State
of Andhra Pradesh.
10. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
11. We find considerable force in the contention of the learned
Special Counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh that the petitioner is not
entitled to seek inter-State transfer on spouse ground at this point of time
in view of Para 6(a) of the Guidelines framed in the Circular
dt.07.08.2017 issued by both States. Had the petitioner sought for
transfer on spouse ground within one month period stipulated in Para
6(a) of the said Circular, and had it been rejected on the ground that his
spouse was not the State Government employee, then the petitioner
would have been entitled to avail the benefit conferred by order
dt.12.10.2018 in W.P.Nos.14006 and 14062 of 2018.
12. We may also point out that the petitioner has not even challenged
the Proceeding dt.19.03.2018 issued by the State of Telangana declining
his request for mutual transfer.
13. In any event since the petitioner is currently working in the State
of Andhra Pradesh on a three year deputation granted to him by the State
of Telangana, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner in
this Writ Petition.
14. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
15. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall
also stand dismissed.
____________________________
M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J
____________________
T.VINOD KUMAR, J
Date: 04 -02-2021
Svv
