Dismissed

H. Govinda Rajulu, S/o. Venkanna, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC19 Nov 2015WP/37430/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a Sanitary Maistry, challenged his transfer from Maddikera to Alur, contending no specific complaints existed. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that transfers are administrative measures necessary for public interest and efficiency, and no fault existed absent proof of mala fides or violation of statutory rules.

What the court decided

AI extract

H. Govinda Rajulu, S/o. Venkanna, Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶2

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶4

W.P. No. 37430 of 2015

¶5

DATE: 19.11.2015

¶6

Between: H. Govinda Rajulu .. Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh and two others .. Respondents

¶7

O R D E R:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Chandraiah)

¶8

The main grievance of the writ petitioner, who is working as Sanitary Maistry at Maddikera, Kurnool District, is that even though there are no complaints against him, the

¶9

3^rd respondent – District Panchayat Officer, issued an order dated 06.10.2015 transferring him from Maddikera to Alur while referring to certain alleged complaints received from the villagers against him with regard to maintenance of sanitation. His further grievance is that when he challenged the order of transfer before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity “the Tribunal), in O.A.No. 6154 of 2015, the Tribunal, without appreciating the fact that the transfer order does not reflect any specific allegation/complaint said to have been made by any of the villagers, and without issuing any notice based on any complaint, dismissed the application. Hence, the present writ petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 30.10.2015 passed by the Tribunal, and consequently, direct the 3^rd respondent to continue the petitioner to work as Sanitary Maistry at Maddikera, Adoni Division, Kurnool District.

¶10

The learned counsel for the petitioner has

¶11

vehemently contended that the 3^rd respondent has not followed the general guidelines dated 04.10.1991 issued by the Government Administration Department and the Tribunal as well did not appreciate this aspect in its order. It is further contended that various High Courts and the Apex Court held under what circumstances grounds can be treated as administrative grounds and in the instant case no such administrative reasons nor any complaints as alleged by the 3^rd respondent are made against the petitioner, as such, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

¶12

The learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for the respondents, has submitted that the Tribunal, while placing reliance on the judgment reported in Ms.Shilpi Bose and Others v.

¶13

State of Bihar and Others^[1] , has categorically held that transfer order is passed only on administrative grounds, as such, the order of the Tribunal cannot be interfered with.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record.

¶15

The law is well settled that transfer is not only an incident but a condition of service, necessary in public interest and for efficiency in the public administration and an order transferring an employee from one place to another cannot be interfered with unless the same is said

¶16

to be fraught with mala fides or contrary to the transfer policy or is said to have been made in violation of mandatory statutory rules. Even though the petitioner has pleaded that in spite of the fact that no complaints whatsoever are made against him the 3^rd respondent erroneously issued orders effecting transfer of the petitioner from Maddikera to Alur, it is not his specific case that the transfer order is fraught with any mala fides or it is issued in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or for any extraneous considerations. However, the specific case of the respondents is that transfer order reflects that it is issued only on administrative grounds.

¶17

Inasmuch as the petitioner is said to have been displaced on administrative grounds / exigencies, we are of the considered opinion that no fault can be found with the impugned order and more so when the petitioner failed to prove that the transfer has been made contrary to the rules or that it has been made with any mala fide intention.

¶18

There is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶19

As a sequel to the dismissal of the writ petition, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶20

_________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J

19.11.2015

U.DURGA PRASAD

RAO, J

bcj

[1] AIR 1991 SCC 532

H. Govinda Rajulu, S/o. Venkanna, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

H. Govinda Rajulu, S/o. Venkanna, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Venu, Vs Sri Pradeep Kumar

N.Ravinder Rao, Vs The A.P.P.S.C.

P.Lakshmi Narayana, Vs Smt.K.Usha Rani

The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Telangana Vs .K.Prabhu Vinay Kumar

V. Janaki Superintendent Vs K.Mohan Reddy

The District Collector, Warangal District, Vs Samudrala Kumaraswamy, Jr.Asst.(Sup)