Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Nagadani Jagadeesh vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 11 August, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
W.P.Nos.16968, 16981, 16982, 16984, 16986, 16987, 16997,
16999, 17002, 17004, 17050, 17541, 17549, 17810, 17852,
17864, 17865, 17872, 17873, 17878, 17882, 17990, 18072,
18126, 18750, 18846 of 2025
COMMON ORDER:
The present batch of writ petitions is filed questioning the
transfers effected by Respondent-authorities as being contrary to
G.O.Ms.No.5 GSWS Department dated 12.06.2025, preparing
guidelines for transfer in consonance with G.O.Ms.No.23 Finance
(HR-I-PLG & Policy) Dept., dated 15.05.2025. As the issue in
these writ petitions is common, with the consent of both the
learned counsel, the writ petitions are disposed of by a common
order.
2. W.P.No.17004 of 2025 is taken up as lead case and the
parties are referred to as they arrayed in the said writ petition.
3. The facts leading to filing of W.P.No.17004 of 2025 are as
follows:
The Petitioners were appointed as Village Agricultural
Assistants Grade-II in the year 2019 through DSC and have been
2posted at various Gram Panchayats. As a part of rationalization,
Respondent No.1 issued G.O.Ms.No.1 GSWS Department, dated
25.01.2025, rationalizing the Village/Ward Secretaries and
Functionaries for effective implementation of Real Time
Governance at Village/ Ward level. Subsequently, G.O.Ms.No.3
GSWS Department, dated 10.04.2025 was issued positioning
various designations of General Purpose Functionaries based on
the category of Village/Ward Secretaries. Thereafter,
G.O.Ms.No.4 GSWS Department dated 17.05.2025 was issued
grouping Village Secretaries, fixing positions to the specific
purpose in the Village/Ward Secretaries. Thereafter,
G.O.Ms.No.5 GSWS Department dated 12.06.2025 was issued
providing principles for positioning and transfers of functionaries.
4. Consequent to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.5 dated
12.06.2025, list of long-standing employees as per station
seniority was prepared by Respondent Nos.5 and 6. As all the
candidates had joined the post under the same notification, the
seniority was taken on the basis of date of birth of the individual
and a list of 445 candidates liable for transfer in the District of
Kurnool was shown.
3
5. The Petitioners and persons similarly placed had given their
choice of posting as per the transfer policy. However,
Respondent Nos.5 and 6 in deviation of the entire transfer and
posting procedure and by ignoring the seniority, transferred the
Petitioners to places which were not opted by them. It is the
specific case that the Respondent No.6 had entertained
recommendations of public representatives and had abdicated
their duty to effect fair transfers and had totally acted at the
instance of letters issued by the public representatives.
6. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents, it was
stated that the transfers were effected as per the transfer policy
and referred to a judgment of Union of India v. Sri Janaradhan
Debanath1 to contend that the transfers at the instance of public
representatives cannot invalidate the transfers effected by the
Respondents in the absence of violation of any statutory rule or
on any allegation of mala fide acts by the Respondents.
7. Though this Court was inclined to issue notice to unofficial
Respondents, but considering the dire urgency expressed by the
learned Government Pleader stating that the administration is in
1
2004 (4) SCC 245
4
chaos, this Court had to dispense with the notice to the unofficial
Respondents.
8. Heard Sri V. Ramesh, Sri V. Maheswar Reddy, Sri Harinath
Reddy Somagutta, Ms. Chukka Harika and Sri D. Prudhvi Teja.
9. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that transfers
were effected without any reference to the seniority list and totally
at the instance of the public representatives. Reliance was placed
on Clause 7(ii) (ix) (xi) and Clause 8 of the transfer policy issued
by G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 12.06.2025. Learned counsels further
submitted that counselling options were given to the Petitioners
(454 candidates) on 29.06.2025 and 30.06.2025 in Kurnool
District and the impugned orders of transfers were issued on the
very same date, which would show that the exercise of calling for
options from the Petitioners was only for name-sake and the
Respondents had already decided the entire transfer policy. The
letters issued by the public representatives i.e. MLAs and MPs
were filed along with additional material papers vide USR
No.80705/2025.
5
10. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that
the letters issued by the public representatives are not really
relating to recommending transfer of the functionaries, but the
letters of recommendation specify the posting of the employee
and the letters are virtually a dictum to the respondent authorities
which was sincerely adhered to. Learned counsel would submit
that though the Petitioners do not have any objection for being
transferred, but the same should be done in accordance with the
guidelines framed to bring transparency in the transfers. The
Additional ground that was urged was that the District Agricultural
officer who issued transfer orders in Krishna District does not
have jurisdiction and the transfers should be effected by District
Collector alone.
11. Learned Government Pleader would submit that the
transfers were effected in accordance with the transfer policy and
that there is no deviation. It is further submitted that all the
employees were appointed through DSC in the year 2019 as
Village Agricultural Assistants Grade-II and the station seniority,
which is the relevant aspect for effecting transfers, is same to all
the persons as all of them joined in the year 2019 only. Learned
6
Government Pleader would submit that there is no bar in the
administration to consider the letters issued by the public
representatives/ MLAs/ MPs as long as the transfers are effected
in consonance with the policy. Learned Government Pleader
would further submit that there are no allegations or mala fide act
by the Respondents nor any allegation of violation in transfer
policy.
12. In view of the above contentions, the issues that falls for
considerations are:
(1) The scope of interference when transfers are effected in
violation of the guidelines?
(2) Whether the transfers are vitiated on account of letters given
by the public representatives?
13. Issue Nos.1 and 2: It has been consistently held by
Hon’ble Supreme Court as well this Court that the transfers
issued in public interest and administration cannot be interfered
even if the transfer guidelines are violated.
7
14. In Shilpi Bose (Mrs) and others v. State of Bihar and
others2, 14 teachers in Bihar who were transferred on request
transfers of rival teachers on spouse grounds questioned the
same. It was on this count, the Supreme Court held that Courts
should not interfere with transfer orders made in public interest
and administrative reasons. The relevant portion of the judgment
is extracted below;
“In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a
transfer order which is made in public interest and for
administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made
in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground
of mala fide.”
15. The above judgement has been the theme for a number of
judgements expressing restraint in interference of transfers
effected for administrative reasons and in public interest. The
restraint imposed in various judgements rejecting pleas regarding
transfers is on the premise that the transfers are effected in public
interest.
2
1991 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 659
8
16. In Major General J.K. Bansal v. Union of India3, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the case of a transfer of
a member of armed forces and held that interference in the
orders of transfers is permissible, provided an exceptionally
strong case is made out. The relevant portion of the judgement at
paragraph 12 is extracted below;
“It is for the higher authorities to decide when and
where a member of the armed forces should be posted.
The courts should be extremely slow in interfering with
an order of transfer of such category of persons and
unless an exceptionally strong case is made out, no
interference should be made.”
17. Coming to the facts of this case, from time to time, the
State undertakes mass transfers in various cadres and
departments. To quell the corridor rumours of favouritism and
bias, transfer policies have been formulated by the Government
departments initially in consultation with the employee
associations and gradually over a period of time, these transfer
guidelines manifested into executive instructions by the State
under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. The purpose of
these executive instructions is to keep unabated power to transfer
3
2005 (7) SCC 227
9
by the authorities on leash and make them accountable for
deviations.
18. This year, the State issued model transfer guidelines vide
G.O.Ms.No.23 Finance (HR-I-PLG & Policy) Dept., dated
15.05.2025 leaving it open to the Departments having unique
operational systems to have their own guidelines subject to the
condition that those guidelines do not conflict G.O.Ms.No.23
dated 15.05.2025. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No.1 issued
G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 12.06.2025, whereunder transfer guidelines
were issued for effecting transfers of functionaries in various
Village/Ward Secretariats. The principles of positioning and
transfers of the functionaries specified in clause 7 thereof is akin
to G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 15.05.2025.
19. As per this clause, those who have completed five years of
stay at Village/Ward Secretariat will invariably be transferred and
the number of years in all cadres/posts at a Village/Ward
Secretariat shall be reckoned as the period of stay at a
Village/Ward Secretariat. The other salient features of this clause
are that no functionaries shall be positioned within the native
Mandal and preferences were also given to certain categories of
10
employees i.e. visually challenged, functionaries having mentally
challenged children, functionaries having worked in tribal areas,
medical grounds, widows etc. The said clause also provides for
posting husband and wife at the same station.
20. As per clause 8, the District Collectors-Appointing
Authorities shall be responsible for positioning of prescribed
numbers and transfers of functionaries as per the orders in a
most transparent and time-bound manner without giving any
scope for allegations. The Directors of GSWS shall make
available an IT tool to help the District Collectors in completing
this task on time.
21. The piquant situation in this cadre is that all the employees
have been appointed as Village Agricultural Assistants Grade-II in
the year 2019 through DSC and this is the first transfer after they
joined the department and therefore, there is a greater degree of
caution and transparency required by the transferring authorities.
The transfer policy does not mention as to what is the criteria that
is being adopted for determining the inter se seniority, lottery
system etc. unlike in other departments, where the individuals
have been appointed on different dates.
11
22. Be that as it may, the Respondents had prepared a
seniority list of 454 candidates in Kurnool District due for transfer
and this list was based on date of birth of the functionaries. The
functionaries of Kurnool District were informed that counselling
would be conducted for Sl.Nos.1 to 227 on 29.06.2025 and for
Sl.Nos.228 to 454 on 30.06.2025 respectively and the
functionaries were directed to submit their applications manually
rather than through an online portal. Accordingly, counselling
was conducted on the dates mentioned above and the Petitioners
had submitted their manual options indicating their choice of
posting. Notwithstanding the options, on the same day, the
impugned order of transfers vide Prodgs.No.A3/726086/2025
dated 30.06.2025 was issued effecting transfers of 455
candidates. Similarly in Krishna District, counselling was
conducted for 476 people i.e. for Sl.Nos.1 to 250 on 28.06.2025
and for Sl.Nos.251 to 476 on 29.06.2025 and transfers were
effected vide Rs.No.A1/05/2025 dated 30.06.2025 transferring
475 functionaries.
23. A reading of the letters issued by the public representatives
would show that a number of functionaries were recommended
12
for transfer and the letters also mention the transferred places of
posting of the recommended functionaries. These details were
mentioned in tabulated statements in the letters. The number of
functionaries recommended for transfer in Kurnool and Krishna
Districts are exceptionally high. As regards other Districts, the
numbers are not so high to the extent of vitiating the transfers.
24. The public representatives being the bridge between the
executive and the employees, they can espouse the cause of the
employees seeking transfer and can also recommend for transfer
of employees. A similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P.,4. Relevant portion
of the judgment is extracted below:
‘…In our opinion, even if the allegation of the
appellant is correct that he was transferred on the
recommendation of an MLA, that by itself would not
vitiate the transfer order. After all, it is the duty of the
representatives of the people in the legislature to
express the grievances of the people and if there is
any complaint against an official the State
Government is certainly within its jurisdiction to
transfer such an employee. There can be no hard-
and-fast rule that every transfer at the instance of an
MP or MLA would be vitiated.’4
2007 (8) SCC 150
13
25. A similar view was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Sri Pubi Lombi v. The State of Arunachal Pradesh and
others5, but the question is the limits of such recommendation.
One odd individual on genuine personal grounds and grounds
akin there to can definitely be recommended for transfer by public
representatives, however, the recommendations to the effect
vitiating the very transfer guidelines cannot be sustained. In
both the cases above, Hon’ble Supreme Court was referring to
transfer of a solitary individual at the instance of public
representative unlike in this case where a number of individuals
totalling nearly 115 functionaries in erstwhile Kurnool District and
102 functionaries in erstwhile Krishna District were not only
recommended for transfers, but their place of posting was also
determined in the letters of the public representatives.
26. Though the learned Government Pleader contended that
the transfers were effected as per the executive instructions
issued vide G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 12.6.2025, however, did not
dispute the fact that the individuals named in the letters of public
representatives are transferred coincidentally to the very same
5
2024 Supreme (SC) 225
14
place in the two districts referred above. It is one thing to say that
transfer is the incidence of service and posting of individuals is
best left to the administration and it is another thing to say that
the postings in mass scale would be at the instance of the public
representatives dehors the executive instructions. Such an
approach would give an impression of parallel administration and
abdication of duty to adhere to the transfer policy issued by
Respondent No.1 vide G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 15.05.2025 read with
G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 12.06.2025.
27. The attempt of the Respondent No.1 to bring in
transparency in the transfers and quell favouritism apparently did
not succeed in the case of erstwhile Kurnool and erstwhile
Krishna Districts as the District Collector/Appointing Authority
merely approved the recommendations without any reference to
G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 12.6.2025 and remained a mute witness. The
attempt of the Respondent No.1 to bring in transparency and
minimise arbitrariness through the executive instructions vide
G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 12.06.2025 in erstwhile Kurnool and erstwhile
Krishna Districts was ignored by the transferring authorities.
15
28. As the majority of transfers in the erstwhile Kurnool and
erstwhile Krishna Districts were effected on account of the letters
issued by public representatives, they cannot be said to be in
public interest and the restraint imposed on the Court from readily
interfering with the transfers of employees cannot come to the aid
of the Respondents.
29. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the transfers
effected in erstwhile Kurnool and erstwhile Krishna Districts need
to be re-considered by the Respondent-authorities in tune with
the transfer policy and this Court has no other option but to direct
the Respondent No.4-Appointing Authority to conduct fresh
counselling and effect transfers in erstwhile Kurnool and erstwhile
Krishna Districts in terms of G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 12.6.2025.
30. As regards the contention that the District Agricultural
Officer does not have jurisdiction to issue impugned orders of
transfer, this Court is not inclined to accept the same as the Joint
Director of Agriculture was made the Appointing authority vide
amendment to A.P. Agricultural Subordinate Service Rules, 1997
through G.O.Ms.No.35 A&C (Agri-IV) Dept. dated 30.01.2020.
This amendment was followed up by G.O.Ms.No.31 dated
16
Finance (HR.I Plg&Policy) Department dated 26.2.2022 wherein it
was stated that generic designation of District Agricultural Officer
would be used instead of Joint Director of Agriculture. The
impugned orders of transfer on this aspect are devoid of merit.
31. As regards other Districts, there is no material to
substantiate the plea that transfers are mala fide or the number of
recommendations for transfer of functionaries by the public
representatives is so high to the extent of vitiating the transfers in
the entire Districts in the light of the judgments of Hon’ble
Supreme Court referred above.
32. Therefore, the batch of writ petitions is disposed of with
following directions:
(i) The W.P.Nos.16981, 16982, 16984, 16986, 16987, 16997,
16999, 17002, 17004, 17050, 17541, 17549, 17852, 17864,
17865, 17872, 17873, 17878, 17882, 18126 and 18846 of 2025
pertaining to erstwhile Kurnool and erstwhile Krishna Districts are
allowed.
(ii) The Respondent authorities shall conduct fresh counselling in
terms of G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 15.05.2025 and G.O.Ms.No.5
17dated 12.06.2025 with regard to erstwhile Kurnool and erstwhile
Krishna Districts and effect transfers accordingly.
(iii) The W.P.Nos.16968, 17810, 17990, 18072 and 18750 of
2025 belonging to other Districts are dismissed.
(iv) No order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: 11.08.2025
KLP