Assistant Professor in J.N.T.U. Kakinada, East Godavari District falling in the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh, but the petitioners had been posted in the State of Telangana.The Court followed its earlier decision in Dr, S, Shoba Rani vs.StateReorganization Departments wherein itwas heldthat basic principleunderlying the guidelines for inter-State transfer on spousegrounds was to protect and keep together employedspouses who wouldotherwisebe separated owing to theallocationundertaken pursuant to the bifurcation of the erstwhilecombined Stateof Andhra Pradesh; that the import and intent of bfurcationof the erstwhileStateof Andhra Pradesh was not to break-upmaruiages;that authoritieshave to conceive, formulate and implementguidelines keeping this in mind; any shortfall inguidetines cannot be taken literally to mean that spouses, whose casesdo not fall within the four comers as set out therein, are to be left outin the cold and must suffermarital separation. It observed lhalthere is no justification forthcomingas to why the State Government employeeswhose spousesare working for Central Government / CentralGovernment P'S' Us / Universitiesetc', should be discriminatedagainst when compared to State Government employees whose spousesare working forthe other State Goyernment. Itheld that there is no justification in discriminating against a State Governmentemployeeonly on the ground that his / her spouse is workingelsewhereand not in the serviceof the other ',State Government.It observed that deputationfor a short period is not '20r7(2) A,L.T. 264(D.8.)
