High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, Order or Direction ohe more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, a. Declaring the action of the Respondents more specifically Respondent No.2 to 4 in conducting the process of transfers, including the counselling, in violation of G.O. Ms. No. 80 dated 03.07.2024 issued by Respondent No.1 as being bad, arbitrary, illegal and violative of article 14, 16., 19 and 21 of constitution and b. Consequentially direct the Respondent No. 2 to 6 to not affect the transfers of the Petitioner as per counselling conducted on 18.07.2024. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to counselling proces.s with respect to the transfer of Petitioner and further allow the Petitioner to continue at present posting. lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Between: '1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretary Building, Hyderabad.

2. fhe State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Dept. of Medical and Health, Govt of Telangana Secretary Building, Hyderabad.

3. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Joint Secretary, Dept. Medical and Health, Govt of Telangana, Secretary Building, Hyderabad

4. The Directorate of Medical Education Govt. of Telangana, Rep by'its Director, Koti, Hyderabad

5. Osmania Medical College, Rep by its Principal, Koti Hyderabad. 6. Nilofer Hospital, Rep by Superintendent, Red Hills, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND Dr. A. Vijayalakshmi, Wo. Sri. G. Yugandhar Occ.Professor (Pediatrics) at Nilofur hospital, Rl/o Nallakunta, Amberpet, Hyderabad. Aged about 56 years, Bathkammakunta, New ...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETIT!ONER Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the orders Dated 19.07.2024 in l.A.No. of 2024 in WP.No.19339 of 2024. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI R.ANURAG Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 5: ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7: SRI A.SANJEEV KUMAR The Court made the following: ORDER , THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.19339 of 2024 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following reliet '...to r'ssue Wit, Order or Direction one more panicularlA in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, a. Declo.ring the action of the Respondents more spectficaltg Respondent No. 2 to 4 in conducting the process of transfers, tncluding the counselling, in uiolation of G.O. Ms. No. 8O dated 03.07.2024 issued bg Respondent No.1 as being bad, arbitrary, illegal and uiolatiue of article 14, 16, 19&21of constitution and. b. Consequentially direct the Respondent No. 2 to 6 to not affect the tra nsfers of the Petitioner as per counselling conducted on 18.07.2024..." 2l Heard Sri R. Anurag, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Additional Advocate General, on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5, and Sri A. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 arld7. 3) lrarned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is presently discharging her duties as professor, pediatrics in respondent No.6 Hospital. While so, respondent No.1 issued G.O.Ms.No.gO dated O3.O7.2O24, duly notifying the transfer and posting of employees by lifting the ban on transfer orders, and according to the said G.O., the transfers were to be affected between os.o7.2o24 and 2o.o7.2024. 'rne I 2 PK, J W.P.No.19339 oJ 2024 said G.O. reads th:rt ortly 4Oo/o of the working cadre slrength would bc considered for the purpose of transfer and accordingly, er list of persons who shall be compulsorily transferred should be communicated through the ofhcial portal, (luly indicating the details of the said personnel along with the period fol rvhich, the said persons have been serving in [he same station / post ing. Further, the employees to be compulsorily tralsferred have tc exercise their option of preferences and to avail any other exemption un(ler the said G.O.

3.1) It is further s'rbmitted that the petitioner's name was not included in the said compulsory transferable list that was circulated and uploaded on the oillcial website- As such, the petitioner did not excrcise her option for tra nsfer. While that being so, on 16.07 .2024 ar,d

17.O7.2024, respondent No.4, in a high-hand ald illegat manner, issued a circular calling lor thc entrre cadre of professors to attend the transfer counseling session tn L8.O7.2024, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.8O. As such, the said action of l.he respondents in issuing the said circular on the eleventh-hour itself would clearly show that there is a mala Jide intention on the part of the oepartment, and only to favour a few persons and to safeguard their men, the said circular was issued. It is further submitted that for' :tny process to be considered as free and fair, sufficient amount ol' time ought to have been grven to the candidates, so 1l 3 PK, J W.P.No. 19339 of 2O24 as to exercise their preferences of the posting or places, to effectively conduct their duties. However, the said process has been completely thrown to air by the respondents, who never followed the process of putiing the petitioner on prior notice and have proceeded with conducting the counseling process and concluded it on 18.07.2024, by transferring the petitioner to M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal, without extending the beneht of G.O.Ms.No.No.80, for special circumstances under medical and spouse grounds. Further, the process of exercising options or preferences was not followed in its true letter and spirit, thereby, depriving the petitioner an opportunity for filling the application form as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.80, and as such, she was denied al opportunity to exercise her options, along with others, to opt for the place of transfer and avail any other criteria for transfer as per G.O.Ms.No.SO. Therefore, on the ground of discrimination and unequal opportunity, the irregular transfer counseling process is liable to be set aside.

3.2) It is further submitted that the exemptions available under G.O.Ms.No.8O dated 03.07.2024 were being wrongly claimed and considered of those persons who are not the office bearers a,d even assuming that their claims are genuine, the verification process could not have been completed within 24 hours. As such, the transfer process 4 PK, J W.P.No- 19339 of 2O24 adopted by respondent Nos.2 to 4 suffers from extreme illegality. Further, posting a list of compulsory transferable personnel and conducting the cor.: nseling by ignoring the said list at their own will and wish, without afforrling an opportunity of raising objections amounts to a violation of principJes of natural justice and is liable to be interfered with by this Court. It is lurther submitted that the cadre strength of the department of pedratrics consists of sixty three posts, and as such, going by G.O.Ms.No.8O dated O3.O7.2O24, only 4Ook of the total strength should have been r:alled for counseling by following compulsory transfer list released by respondent No.4. However, the circular issued by respondent No.4 goes contrary to G.O.Ms.No.8o dated 03.O7.2024, wherein, the entirr: cadre strength was called for transfer counseling. As such, on this grolrnd also, the transfer process is liable to be set aside. Therefore, it is pra.zed to allow the present writ petition. 4l On the oth,:r hand, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that the Government has issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.80 dated O3.O7 .2024,lifting ban on transfers from O5.O7 .2024 to 2O.OT .2024, and subsequently, extension orders were issued in G.O.Ms.No.SS dated 2O.O7.2024, extending the same till

30.O7.2024. As pcr paragraph 4 (B) of G.O.Ms.No.8o dated 03.O7.2024, no person shall be retained beyond four years of service in a particular &t, / -*-*."*q*}*,{ 5 PK, J W.P.No.19339 of 2024 station as oL 30.06.2024. However, the emproyees retiring on before 30.06.2025 shall not be trarsferred, even if they complete four years of service, unless he or she opts for a transfer. F\rrther, as per paragraph 6(e;, station means place (city, town, village) of actua_l working for the purpose of transfers ald not office (or) institution.

4.ll It is further submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.gO dated 03.o7 '2024' a list of long-standing employees who have compreted four years and above as on 30.06.2024, a,long with request transfers, has been prepared in category of professor in the specialty of pediatrics and it was found that there are twenty three candidates who have completed four years and above of service, including the petitioner, and their names were enlisted in the list of long-standing employees liable for compulsory transfer in the Professor cadre, wherein, the petitioner was shown at Sl.No. 19. The petitioner, along with other doctors, was called for counseling vide circulars dated 16.07 .2024 and rz .or .2024, and they attended the same on 78.OT .2024 wherein the petitioner opted her choice for place of posting at M.G.M. Hospital, Waralgal, and also signed in the counseling sheet atso.

4.21 office They It is further submitted that three doctors have submitted their bearer certificates for exemption from General Transfers 2024. are the office bearers of the Telangala Government Doctors 5 PK, J W.P.No.19339 of 2024 Association, having been elected for the term 2024-26. The Committee constituted for transfer and posting of employees as per G.O.Ms.No.27 dated 06.07 .2024, has conducted the counseling or. 1.8.O7.2O24,'and after verifying ancl examining the office bearers certilicates submitted by the those three l?rofessors as per the guidelines issued in Circular Memo.No.20914 I S;Wl/ A2/2012-1 and Circular Memo.No.20914 ISWII A2 /2012-2 dated 3O.O6.2012, and also Government Memo.No.2550623- Al206/Al/HRM.l12O24-l dated 72.O7.2024, th,e Committee decided to exempt those three doctors shown at Sl.Nos.7, 10 and 11, who are in the Department of Pe<liatrics in the post of Professor of Pediatrics, from the General Trarsfers 2024. As such, there is no deviation from the above rules.

4.3) It is further submitted that the petitioner's name was inciuded in the long-standing list as per the station seniority, as she has completed six years two months of service in the present station in a,ll cadres. Accordingly, the Government issued transfer orders to the eighteen Professors in the Pediatrics Department who have attended the transfer counseling ald 6p16d for place of posting during the counseling, including the petitioner herein, who has been transferred to M.G.M. Hospital, Warang:rl. As such, there is no illegality in the conduct of 1 7 PK, J W.P.No.l9339 of 2024 transfer counseling and issuance of posting orders. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 5) Learned counsel for respondent No.7 submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.4l 1 dated 31.07 .2012, the Telangana Doctors Association has been recognized by the erstwhile Government of Andhra pradesh, and the Government also issued Memos dated 26.06.2012 and,

30.06 .2012, granting the benelit of exemption from tralsfers to all the office bearers of the recognized associations, for a period of six years. Subsequently, after formation of the state of Telangala, the Government issued Memo dated 11.06.2018, duly extending the recognition by the Government of Telangana. It is further submitted that no election were conducted aJter 2018, and for the hrst time, in pursuance of the directions of this Court dated 25.11.2022 in W.p.Nos.26g96 and 38614 of 2022, the learned Advocate commissioners conducted the elections of the Association at the central office level in respect of a_ll units on 29.04.2024, in a fair arld transparent manner. Thereafter, the results were declared on 16.O5.2024, whereby, respondent No.7 was elected as the President of rela,gana Doctors Association. Therefore, respondent No.7 and the other ofhce bearers of the Association are entitled for exemption from transfers despite their completing more than four years of service at a particular station i.e., at respondent No.6 Hospital. As 8 PK, J W.P.No.19339 of 2024 such, his nzune u/as exciuded from the transfer counselring list and he, along with the two employees who are the office bearers of the Telangana Doctors Association, \,\,ere not subjected to transfer. 6) This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties. 7l ro adjudicate the [s, this court feers it necessary to refer/extract relevant portions of the guidelines issued by the Government vide G.o.Ms.No.80, dated 03.o7.2024, to be followed while effecting tiansfers. a) Para 4 (B) slates that no person sha,ll be retained beyond 4 years of service in a particular station as on 3orh June, 2024. However, the employees who are retiring before 30rh June, 202S shall not be tra,sferred even if they have completed four years of service, unless they make a specific request for their transfer. b) Para 4 (cJ states to ensure that there is no disrocation of the work, not more t},an 4oo/,, of the employees in any manner shall be transferred. c) Para 7 stipulates the procedure for transfers i) The Hot)s/Competent Authoriry shall publish the list of incumbents u/orking category wise and cadre wise, in all units under their jurisdiction. along with place and duration. 9 PK, J W.P.No.19339 of 2024 ii) Simiiarly, all clear vacancies shall also be published before seeking options from the employees. iii) The Competent Authority shail publish a list of employees to be compulsorily trarlsferred. i") The Competent Authority may obtain upto five options for preferential places of transfers from the employees in the prescribed proforma in Annexure-Il. However, the Departments may modify the proforma according to their specifrc requirements. vii) To ensure transparency, all the notihcations shall be published online or on the office notice board. 8) As can be seen from the record, pursualt to issuqnce of G.O.Ms.No.80, dated 03.OT.2024, respondent No.4 had prepared department-wise compursory Transfer List. Insofar as pediatrics Department, to which the petitioner belongs to, is concerned, the cadre strength of the said Department is 63 and working strength is 44, out of whom, 23 candidates in Pediatrics Department incruding petitioner have completed the service of four years and above. Out of them, the respondents have identifre d 4oo/o of the working strength i.e. 1g persons, who are having longstanding service at one place i.e. Hyderabad. Further, the respondents have transferred the petitioner from Nilofar Hospital, Hyderabad, to MGM Hospital, Warangal, by including her name in the longstanding iist duly giving exemption to the Office Bearers, whose names were included it the 4O%o Compulsory Transfer List at 10 PK, J W.P.No.19339 of 2024 Sl.Nos.7, 10 and 11, in terms of para 6 (C) of G.O.Ms.No.80, dated O3.O7.2024, which reads as under: "The standing instructions on the transfers of office bearers of employees unions recognrzed, by the Government, as issued in Circular Memo No.20914/S.W.I iA2/2012-1 of G.A. (Services Weifare.t) Department, dt.26_O6- 2012 read with rlircular Memo.No.2Og14 /S.W.I/A2/2Ot2-2 OF G.A. (Services welfare.I) Department, dated 30.06.2012, shall be fo[owed scrupulously., Admittedly, the petitioner has not chailenged para 6 (C) of G.O.Ms.No.g0, dated O3.07.2024, which provides for exemption to the office bearers of employees Union, relying on which, the authorities have considlered a,d retained the persons shown at Sl.Nos.7, 1O and ).1 in tne 4Oo/o compulsory Transfer List, which uitimately resulted in transfer of the petitioner. 9) Further, though the petitioner has specifically contended that she stands at S1. No. 1 9 anrl does not come within the purview of 4Oo/o Compulsory Tran sfer List, but in compliance of para 4 (C) of G.O.Ms.No.80, dated O3.O7.2024, the authorities have transferred the petitioner in view of the fact that she has completed 6 years and two months of service ,at Hyderabad and therefore falls under para 4(B) of G.O.Ms.No.80, dated O3.O7.2024, which stipulates that no person shall be retained beyond four years of service in a particular station as on 30.06.2024. / 7 77 FK, J W-P.No.19339 oJ 2024 10) F\rrther, as can be seen from the materiar annexed to the vacate stay petition frled by the rearned Additiona,l Advocate Generar, during the transfer counseling, 21 candidates, including the petitioner herein, have participated wherein the petilioner has exercised the only option for place of posting at ,MGM, Warangal,, a.d the authorities have a-lso considered same and transferred her to the place of her choice i.e. MGM Hospital, Warangal. 11) In this context, it is relevalt to state that in Unton o! India a. S.L. Abbosl, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "6. An order of transfer is an incident of Governrnent service. Fundamental Rule 1 1 says that .the whole time of a Government servant is at the disposal of the Government which pays him arrd he may be employed in any manner required by proper authorie/. Fundamenta,l Rule 1S says that ,,ttre president may transfer a Government servart from one post to another,. That the respondent is liable to transfer any.where in India is not in dispute. lt rs not the case of the respondent that the order of his transfer is vitiated by mala fides on the part oT the authority making the order, _ though the Tribunal does say so merely because certain guidelines issued by the Central Government a-re not followed, with which finding we shall deal later. The respondent attdbuted "mischiefl to his immediate superior who had nothing to do with his transfer. Al1 he says is that he should not be transferred because his wife is working at Shillong, his children are studying there and also because his hea-rth had suffered a setback ' (r993) 4 SCC 357 72 ( PK, J w.P.No.19339 of 2024 sometirne ago. He retes upon certain execulive instrLrctions issued by the Government in that behalf. Those instructions are in the nature of guidelines. They do not have statutory force.

7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala frdes or is made in violation of arry statutory provisions, the court cannot ir: terfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the aul hority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation wllh respect to his transfer, the appropriate auLhority must consider the same having regard to thc exigencies of administration The guidelines say that as far as possible, husbaid and wife must be pcsted at the same p1ace. The said gr-rideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right." 12\ Similar vierv was taken by the Hontrle Supreme Court in its subsequent judgrrLent in State Bank o;f Indiq. u. Anjan Sangal2 holding as under: "4. An order of transfer of an employee is a part of the service conditions and such order of transfer is not required to be interfered with lightiy by a court of law in exercise of its discretionarSi jurisdiction unless t]..e cor.r rt hnds that earlier ttre order is mala fide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer or that the authorities, who issued the order, had rLot the competence to pass the order...." 13) From the above settled proposition, it is clear that an order should not be interfered rvith, unless the same is vitiated by maia fides. In the , (2OOl) s SCC 508 13 PK. J W.P.No.19339 of 2024 case on hand, the petitioner is unable to establish any mala hde on the part of the official respondents either in tra,sferring the petitioner or in retaining the unofhcial respondent. Therefore, the impugned transfer order does not warrant any interference of this Court. r4l In view of the above, this court does not Iind anv merit and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 15) Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs. SD/. K.SREERAMA M DEPUW REG RTHY TRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1 2 3 4 PSK. PSK \ One CC to SRI R.ANURAG, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] one cc to sRl A.SANJEEV KUMAR, Advocate [oPUc] Two CD Copies HIGH GOURT DATED:1710412025 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.19339 ot 2024 HL S l,\t 1 ':- c ,-1,.. iil( (l 1i t\t'f, ?15 c .,, ,::tl L,: ,J // DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS