Three writ petitions challenging the legality of staff transfers by A.P.S.R.T.C. officers via mandamus. The court found transfers violated specific corporate circulars regarding administrative grounds and seniority, setting aside the impugned proceedin
The transfer proceedings dated 13-09-2004, 27-08-2002, and 02-07-2004 were set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH
WRIT PETITION Nos: 18034 of 2004, 11102 of 2004 & 11842 of 2004:
W.P.No.18034 of 2004:
Between:
V.Rama Chandra, S/o. V. Gangaiah,aged 56 years, R/o 45, Kothapalli, Irala (M), Kanipakam (V), Chittoor District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The Chairman and Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad,
Hyderabad.
2 The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Chittoor Region Division, Chittoor
District.
3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Chittoor Bus Depot, Chittoor District.
4 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Palamaner Bus Depot, Chittoor District.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in transferring the Petitioners vide his proceedings
dt. 13-9-2004 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, without jurisdiction and violation of their own circulars and consequently set aside the proceedings dt. 13-9-2004 issued by the 2nd Respondent dt. 13-09-2004.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. G.RAVI MOHAN
Counsel for the Respondents: MR.P.VINAYAKA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION No : 11102 of 2004
Between:
District.
District.
District.
District.
District.
District.
District.
District.
District.
District.
District.
District.
District.
..... PETITIONERS
AND
Hyderabad.
District.
District.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in transferring the Petitioners vide his proceedings dt. 27-8-2002 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, without jurisdiction and violation of their own circulars and consequently set aside the proceedings issued by the 3rd Respondent dt. 27-8-2002.
Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.G.RAVI MOHAN
Counsel for the Respondents: MR.P.VINAYAKA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION NO : 11842 of 2004
Between:
..... PETITIONERS
AND
Hyderabad.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in transferring the Petitioners vide his proceedings
No.P1/813(20)/2004-PLMR dt. 2-7-2004 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, without jurisdiction and violation of their own circulars and consequently set aside the proceedings No. No.P1/813(20)/2004-PLMR , dt. 2-7-2004 issued by the 3rd Respondent.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.RAVI MOHAN
Counsel for the Respondents: MR.P.VINAYAKA SWAMY
The Court made the following :
COMMON ORDER:
Heard the arguments of learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. It is stated that the second respondent-Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. effected the transfers of the petitioners contrary to the Circulars of A.P.S.R.T.C. issued in Circular No.PD-44/1987, dated 20.04.1987 relating to transfers of staff members from one place to another and the Circular No.PD-3/84-85, dated 26.04.1984. Though it is disclosed in the transfer orders of the petitioner that the transfers have been effected on the administrative grounds in view of excess position at the present depots and short position at the transferred depots, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the transfer of the petitioners cannot be effected on administrative grounds, as per the guideline No.3 issued in Circular No. PD44/1987, dated 20.04.1987, which reads as follows:
“3. GUIDELINES FOR TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES ON ADMINISTRATIVE GROUNDS: Employee is liable to be transferred:
iv.
3. In the instant case, none of the guidelines mentioned supra under Clauses (i) to (iv) are attracted to effect the transfer of the petitioners. Even the transfer of the petitioner is effected on administrative grounds, the seniority has to be maintained as per the other Circular No.PD-3/84-85, dated 26.04.1984. The said circulars issued by the Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad prevails over the settlement said to have been arrived at the divisional level. The said legal contention and the version of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Therefore, I am of the view that the transfer of the petitioners is contrary to the circulars issued by the respondents-Corporation.
4. Accordingly, all the three Writ Petition are allowed setting aside the proceedings dated 13-09-2004 issued by the second respondent in W.P.No.18034 of 2004, Proceedings dated 27.08.2002 issued by the 3rd respondent in W.P.No.11102 of 2004 and Proceedings dated 02.07.2004 issued by the 3rd respondent in W.P.No.11842 of 2004, in view of the existing circulars issued by the respondentsCorporation relating to the transfer of staff of A.P.S.R.T.C. There shall be no order as to costs.
V. ESWARAIAH, J
Dated:10-11-2004.
ccm
That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above.
Witness the Hon’ble Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice on this the Tenth day of November, Two Thousand and Four.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
To:
1 The Chairman and Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
District.
District.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the transfer of railway staff was illegal and arbitrary violating statutory circulars on administrative transfers.
Whether guidelines for transfer on adverse reports were adhered to in the instant cases.
Whether seniority was maintained as per the corporate circulars during the transfers.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
V. Rama Chandra
T.A. Padhmanabham
T.V.R. Sastry
Chairman and Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C.
Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C.
V. Eswaraiah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
