The High Court · 2025

Petition under lSection 151 CPC praying that in the cir.cumstances stated in the affidavit filed ir support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Responderrls to continue the Appellant at the present p ace of posting i.e., Nilofer Hospital, tled hills and not to give effect to any trans'er order if any issued, pending dispo:;al of the present Writ Appeal Counsel for the Appr:llant: SRl. R. ANURAG Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1toS: SRI ANURAG BAJPAI AGP FOR THE ADDITIONAL ADVOCI..TE GENERAL Counsel for the Resoondent Nos.6&7: SRI A. SANJEEV KUMAR The Gourt made the lbllowing: ORDER THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF'JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA UIRIT APPEAL No.455 of 2o.25 JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paut): Sri R. Anurag, learned counsei for the appellant/ writ petitioner and Sri Anurag bajpai, learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the ofhce of the learned Additional Advocate General, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2 Heard on admission

3. This intra-court appeal assails the order dated 17.04.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.19339 of

2024. Even before issuance of any transfer order, the writ petition was filed to not to effect the transfer of the appellant as per counseling conducted on l8.OT .2024 and sought for a declaration that the conduct of process of transfer, including counselling etc., of the appellant as bad, arbitrary and vioiative of certain provisions of the Constitution.

4. Admittedly, the appellant remained posted at Hyderabad for more than six years two months. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the transfers are governed by G.O.Ms.No.8O, dated O3.O7.2O24. Clause 7 of the said G.O. deals with "procedure for a_., 2 transfer", 81, placing reliance on clause 7(ii) and (viii) ,:f the said G.O., it is submitted lat these provisions were grossly violetecl By placing reliance on the jrrdg6ents of the Supreme Court in p. Mchan Reddy v. E.A.A. Charkrsl, Prabir Banerjee v. Union of India2 a td Ms X v. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya pradesh3, it i; submitted that even the r1;qs6u1jy6 instructions are binding in. tht, matter of transfers and in ,,iolation of even executive instructions. tri Lnsfer order can be intcrfere cl with. In addition, it is submitted tha t there are other procedura violations in the matter of transfer. 5 The ot'rer side opposed the prayer and sup ported the irnpugned order

6. This is t.rite that transfer is an incident of serr ice. Where employees' servl,;,:s are required, decision about that is thc prerogative of the employer. n other words, employer is the best judg e to decide where the serv jc c,s of an employee are to be utilized. Th: appellant admittedlv rema ned posled in Hyderabad for six years tu,o months. 7 . In vieu, cf catena of judgments of the Supreme Cc urt, this is trite that transfr.t order can be interfered with if it runs tontrary to any statutory prrvision (not policy guidelines/ executive in;tructions), chalges service r:ondition of an employee to his/her detrimr:nt, passed '1zoor1 a scc +:: ' (zooz) s scc zg: ' lzozzl tt scc Bt 3 by an incompetent authority or proved to be mala frde. In the insta.nt case, none of these ingredients are available (See Shipli Bose (Mrs) v. State of Bihara, Union of India v. S.L.Abbass, Rajendra Roy v. Union of Indiao, State of U.P. v. Gobardhan La17 and Pubi tombi v. The State of Arunachal Pradesh8).

8. So far the judgment of the Supreme Court in P. Mohan Reddy (supra) is concerned, the matter relates to seniority. This is trite that in service law, if recruitment/promotion Rules are silent or there exists a vacuum, the same can be filled up by executive instructions. Thus, an executive instruction in the matter of seniority which became subject matter of adjudication in P. Mohan Reddy (supra) cannot be stretched to make it applicable in cases of transfer. Thus, judgment of P. Mohan Reddy (supra) is of no assistance to the appellant.

9. The next reliance of learned counsel for the appeliant was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prabir Banerjee (supra). Heavy reliance is placed on paragraph No.22 of the said judgment which reads thus: "22. No doubt tralsfer is an incident of serr.ice in an all-India service and under the Central Service Rules the controlling authority was competent to transfer the o 1991 supp (2) scc 659 ' 1r9s31 + scc:sz ' (tgg:) r scc r+g ' 1zooa1 rr scc +oz 3 2024 SCC Online SC 279 4 Cer .C' Col, Exc Aut Coll Con tv,ro Cus l\ras 16- I Comntissioner of Central Excis e/Customs i Com orissionerate would be th e Cadre Contr, Auth c rity up to Group ,B,-level staff, and its func would include monitorin g the implementation o Boar:l's instructions with regard to the tralsfers equil e ble distribution of manpower ald ma rcsoLu.ces between the Commlsstonerates/ zones.,, t:oncerned In fact, by subsequent Circular -2003 the Board furth idered e a-lso rf the n its :nding 3'ald crates e said re two ,n. As entral 'ollinq ;, the lp'B', Lal<en n the .ween -. and 1a rlling ' the eria l (Emphasis supl lied)

10. A micro;:opic reading of aforesaid paragraph mal.es it clear that the cadrc s \\,ere distributed betwe en the zon( rs by an administrative dr:cision_ Thus, transferring a person liom one cadre to another cadre contrary to such administrative decision, could not be countenanced In this backdrop, the judgment of prabir Banerjee (supra) was deliv :red. In the instant case, it is not th e ar gument of learned counsel for the appellant that the respon< ents are incompetent to transfer the appellant or transl-er will cl Lange her l I I I I l I service conditions. Thus, this judgment is of no assistance to the 5 appellant.

11. So far the judgment of Ms X (supra) is concerned, it was delivered in the peculiar facts of the said case and the same cannot be pressed into service in the instant case.

12. In the absence of pointing out any such ingredients, on which interference can be made, admission is declined.

13. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/.I.NAGALAKSHMI JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER One CC to SRl. R. ANURAG, Advocate loPUcl Two CCs to THE ADDIIIONAL ADVO CATE GENERAL High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUrl One CC to SRi. A. SANJEEV KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies To, 1 2 3 4 BM wLS HIGH COURT DATED:2210412025 JUDGMENT WA.No.455 of 2025 Y i-L \ To 'a 4 \ a .9 t\ i, \ I t"l .\ .\Y r!. DISMISSING -I-HE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS &q 4 e5 ! I I I I