WP/40689/2014 of Dr. Mrs. S. Jyothi, BHMS, Vs Commissioner of Ayush, on 30 December 2014

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANUAND

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

WRIT PETITION No.40689 OF 2014

ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated10.12.2014, in O.A.No.7019 of 2014 on the file of the Andhra PradeshAdministrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”).

2. Petitioner/applicant filed the aforementioned Original Applicationbefore the Tribunal to call for the records pertaining to proceedings,dated 12.11.2014, of respondent No.1 and consequently, to quash theorder of transfer issued by respondent No.1 transferring the applicantas Medical Officer, Government Homoeo Dispensary, Jonnada, EastGodavari District as illegal and arbitrary, and consequential ordersvide Memo, dated 21.11.2014, issued by respondent No.2 andconsequential order, dated 21.11.2014, issued by respondent No.3;and consequently, to direct the official respondents to continue theapplicant as Medical Officer at Dr.A.R.Government Homoeo Hospital,Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

3. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record,dismissed the aforementioned Original Application. Challenging thesame, applicant filed the present writ petition.

4. The petitioner/applicant, who was working as Medical Officer,Homoeopathy in Dr.Allu Ramalingaiah Government Homoeo Hospital,Rajahmundry, East Godavari District was transferred from that place toGovernment Homoeo Dispensary, Jonnada, East Godavari District inthe same district vide proceedings, dated 12.11.2014, onadministrative grounds and in turn, respondent No.4 was placed in herplace at Rajahmundry from Jonnada on his request.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner isworking at Rajahmundry for the last five years and in the middle of theacademic year, she should not be transferred without counselling interms of the Government transfer guidelines; that in spite of clearvacancies at some other places, respondent No.4 was not postedthere and hence, he prays to allow the writ petition.

6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services(Andhra Pradesh) opposed the same on the ground that theGovernment of Andhra Pradesh is not a party to the writ petition andtherefore, the writ petition itself is not maintainable and hence, heprays to dismiss the writ petition.

7. The transfer order, dated 12.11.2014, issued by respondent No.1was under challenge before the Tribunal. Grievance of the petitioneris that the guidelines, which have been referred to in the transferproceedings, have not been followed by respondent No.1 in effectingher transfer from one place to another. If the transfer is made not inaccordance with the Rules, there is no need to interdict the transferorder. There cannot be any dispute that a Government Servant isliable to be transferred to a similar post in the same cadre, which is anormal feature and incident of Government Service, and noGovernment Servant can claim to remain in a particular place or in aparticular post unless, of course, transfer itself is contrary to Rules,transfer guidelines or authority, who transferred, lacks jurisdiction toeffect transfer. However, the fact remains that in pursuance of thisorder, the petitioner was relieved at Rajahmundry. Therefore, the reliefsought for in the aforementioned Original Application as well as in thewrit petition cannot be granted.

8. As the petitioner claims that there was violation of the guidelinesissued for effecting the transfer, the petitioner is at liberty to make arepresentation to respondent No.1 and thereafter, the officialrespondents shall consider the said representation in accordance with

law and also the Government Orders as referred in the transfer order,dated 12.11.2014, and take appropriate decision and pass necessaryorders with reasons. The said order shall be communicated to thepetitioner within a period of ten (10) days after passing the said order.Since no relief is sought for against the Government of AndhraPradesh either in the Original Application or in this writ petition andbecause the petitioner challenges only the transfer order, dated12.11.2014, issued by respondent No.1, the State of Andhra Pradeshcannot be said to be a necessary party.

9. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Thereshall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pendingin this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

______________________

JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

Date: 30.12.2014AMD

_______________

JUSTICE ANIS

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANUANDTHE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

WRIT PETITION No.40689 OF 2014

DATE: 30.12.2014

AMD