Maniyar Imran Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

MANIYAR IMRAN, S/O M.BASHEER, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS P.G.T. MATHEMATICS AT A.P. MODEL SCHOOL, RARIA.GANAPALLI, NANDYAL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH,

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI.

¶15

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

2

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶19

1.G.SAI LOCHAN

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶21

1.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶22

WRIT PETITION NO: 25768/2025

¶23

Between:

¶24

DONTHIREDDY VIJAYALAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, PRESENTLY MARKING AS SCHOOL ASSISTANT, MATHEMATICS, AT ZPHIGH SCHOOL,AGADUR THONDUR MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶25

...PETITIONER

¶26

AND

¶27

THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI.

¶28

THE COMMISSIONER, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI.

¶29

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶30

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶32

1.SRIPATHI RAVI TEJA

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶34

GP FOR SERVICES II

¶35

ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶36

3

¶37

WRIT PETITION NO: 25818/2025

¶38

Between:

¶39

K SIVASUBBALAKSHUMMA, W/O M. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS S.G.T. (DESIGNATION), AT MPUPS C KAMMAPALLI SCHOOL, RLY KODUR MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH,

¶40

...PETITIONER

¶41

AND

¶42

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI.

¶43

THE COMMISSIONER, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI.

¶44

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶45

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶46

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶47

1.BANDA SAI SAMPATH KUMAR

¶48

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶49

1.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶50

2.ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶51

The Court made the following:

¶52

4

¶53

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶54

W.P.Nos.25732, 25768 and 25818 of 2025

¶55

COMMON ORDER:

¶56

The batch of writ petitions was filed declaring the action of Respondents in not considering the Petitioners’ request for transfer on medical grounds despite submission of detailed representations as illegal and arbitrary.

¶57

As the issue in these writ petitions is common, with the consent of the learned counsel, the writ petitions are disposed of by a common order at the stage of admission itself.

¶58

Petitioners are working as Secondary Grade Teachers in various schools and were initially transferred in March, 2024. However, they were not relieved due to intervening circumstances. Then, the Petitioners filed W.P.No.23323 of 2024 and batch seeking for a direction to relieve them pursuant to the orders of transfer. The said batch of writ petitions was dismissed by this Court on 28.08.2024. The Writ Appeal filed thereon being W.A.No.747 of 2024 and batch were closed as new Transfer Rules were formulated in the year 2025 and the Petitioners opted

¶59

5

¶60

to exercise their options in the general transfers conducted in May, 2025.

¶61

The grievance of the Petitioners is that though they had exercised their options in the general transfers conducted in June, 2025 hoping that their cases would be considered taking note of the medical and familial issues. However, the Petitioners could not be posted at places of their preference opted.

¶62

Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that considering the nature of medical and familial issues faced by the Petitioners sought for consideration of their cases under the Andhra Pradesh State Teachers (Regulation of Transfers) Rules, 2025 framed under G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 20.05.2025. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submits that the Petitioners are unaware of the Rules, to seek their grievance within the time specified before the Grievance Committee.

¶63

Learned Government Pleader attached to Additional Advocate General would submit that the cases of the Petitioners were considered as per the options exercised and have been posted at the places of their preference and in the absence of any vindictive approach by the Respondents, the writ petitions cannot

¶64

6

¶65

be maintained. It was further contended that the cases of the Petitioners were considered in the year 2024 and their request for transfers was rejected. The further submission is that there has to be a closure to the plea of transfers and the Petitioners cannot keep on agitating till they are posted at a place of their choice.

¶66

This Court had perused the orders of rejection passed and it is more on factual scenario at that point of time i.e. with regard to the administration issues, but there is no reference to the grounds on which the Petitioners are seeking transfers i.e. medical, family and other grounds.

¶67

Having heard the respective counsel, without going into the genuineness of the claims of the Petitioners, the Writ Petitions are disposed of with the following directions:

¶68

(a) The Petitioners are directed to submit their applications to the State Level Grievance Committee as provided under Rule 18 of the A.P.State Teachers (Regulation of Transfers) Rules, 2025 within a period of four weeks from today.

¶69

(b) On receipt of the same, the State Level Grievance Committee shall examine the grievances of the Petitioners on merits and

¶70

7

¶71

take appropriate decision, if the claims of the Petitioners are found to be genuine.

¶72

( c ) No orders as to costs.

¶73

As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶74

___________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J