ft I APHC010237452025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH- AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYAr^ AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAp WRIT APPEAL NO: 710 OF 2025 . - Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 13.02.2025 in WP No.23889 of 2024 on the file of High Court._ Between: 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, CT, Finance Department, A P Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Chief Commissioner of State Tax, A.P.Kunchanapalli, Guntur District. ...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS^ AND 1. G. Ravindra Babu, S/o. Late G Radha Krishnaiah, Aged about 49 years, Occ Manager, O/o The Joint Commissioner ST, Vijayawada III Division Vijayawada N T R District A P. ...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER 2. N. Jagadeeswaraiah, Age and S/o not Known to the Petitioner, Occ; Deputy Assistant Commissioner, ST 1, O/o Assistant Commissioner ST, Bhavanipuram Circle, Vijayawada, N T R District, A P. (Respondent No.2 is only a formal party) r ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT f ■ lA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 suspend the operation of orders dated 13.02.2025 in W.P.No.23889 of 2024 pending disposal of the Writ Appeal. ^ Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR SERVICES I ^ Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SMT. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondent No.2:— The Court made the following: JUDGMENT APHC010237452025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3526] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT APPEAL NO:710 OF 2025 Between: 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, A P SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, A P KUNCHANAPALLI GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1.G RAVINDRA BABU, S/0 LATE G RADHA KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC MANAGER, 0/0 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER ST, VIJAYAWADA III DIVISION VIJAYAWADA N T R DISTRICT A P. 2.N JAGADEESWARAIAH, AGE AND S/0 NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, OCC DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ST1 0/O‘ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, VIJAYAWADA, N T R DISTRICT, A P BHAVANIPURAM CIRCLE, ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.KAVITHA GOTTIPATF 2 % The Court made the following JUDGMENT: (PerNJS.j) The present intra court appeal has been preferred by the State against the orders of the learned- single Judge in W.P.No.23889 of 2024, dated 13.02.2015. The respondent-petitioner filed the said writ petition seeking to declare the proceedings issued by the. Chief Commissioner of State Tax dated 20.09.2024 transferring him from the office of the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Bhavanipuram Circle, Vijayawada - I Division to Office of the Joint Commissioner (ST) Vijayawada-Ill Division as contrary to G.O.Ms.No.75 2) Fin.(HR.I-PLG. •& Policy) Department, dated 17.08.2024 and G.O.Ms.No.170 Revenue (CT) Department, dated 22.08.2024 and for consequential directions. 3) The case of the respondent-writ petitioner is that he is a visually challenged person, appointed against Roster Point No.6 - Visually challenged quota and the guidelines framed by the Government for transfers and postings of employees vide G.O.Nos.75 and 170 dated 17.08.2024 and 22.08.2024 respectively, are applicable to him. The said GOs., provide for exemption of the visually challenged employees from transfers, except when they make a specific request for transfer; that no such request for transfer was made by the petitioner. However, the petitioner has been transferred in contravention of the G.Os., referred to supra. The 2"'^ respondent / 2"'^ appellant filed counter affidavit justifying the issuance of transfer orders; that the transfer is only from one office to another office and not beyond at all. 4) n 3 5) The unofficial respondent did not choose to service of notice. enter appearance, despite 6) The learned single Judge after scrupulously considering the matter with reference to the guidelines framed in the GOs referred to above, answered the point for consideration “Whether the transfer of the petitioner dated 20.09.2024 is legaliy sustainabie?" against the appellants / respondents and in favour of the writ petitioner. Referring to Clause Nos. 9 and 10 of G.O.No.170 dated 22.08.2024, issued by the Government in respect of the transfers and postings of employees working in the Commercial Tax Department, the learned Single Judge recorded a categorical finding of fact that the transfer of the respondent- writ petitioner was effected without from arbitrariness. Learned Judge also held that the in adherence to the guidelines, but not at the whims and fancies any request and that the transfer suffers transfers should be made of the Head of the Department, that the administrative authority who purports to act by its regulation must be bound by the regulations.. While holding that the guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024 issued i exercise of the executive power in under Article 162 of the Constitution of India have a statutory force in the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Paluru Ramakhshnaiah v Union oflndia^ etc., the learned Judge allowed the Writ Petition by setting aside the Transfer proceedings and issued directions petitioner to the source place from the transferee place to restore the respondent-writ 7) Learned Government Pleader, on behalf of the appellants, made submissions ot impress upon this Court that the order of the learned single 'air 1990 sc 1€6 ■r 4 Judge is not sustainable. Referring to the transfer proceedings dated 20.09.2024 he submits that the 1®* respondent-petitioner was in fact shifted r from one office situated in Vijayawada town to another office of the department, which is situated in the same town and as such, the respondent-writ petitioner cannot have any grievance. He also submits that the department is well within its power to utilize the services of‘its employees at the place of its choice in the 9t interest of department and in fact, no hardship is meted out to the 1 respondent-writ petitioner by the transfer proceedings impugned in the Writ Petition. He also submits that the department has taken into consideration that the respondent writ petitioner is differently abled person and accommodated him within Vijayawada town and the learned single Judge without appreciating these aspects in the correct perspective allowed the writ petition and therefore the order under challenge is liable to be set aside. He also submits that the unofficial respondent joined the duties pursuant to the impugned proceedings. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1®* respondent-writ petitioner 8) made submissions to sustain the orders passed by the learned single Judge. On an appreciation of the submissions made, the point that arises for 9) consideration is “Whether the order under challenge is liable to be interfered with in the facts and circumstances of the case? It is not in dispute that the transfers and postings of employees working in Commercial Tax Department are governed by G.O.Ms.No.170 Revenue (CT) 10) Department, dated 22.08.2024 and the same has been issued by the State Government in exercise of Executive power under Article 162 of the 5 Constitution of India. The guidelines which are relevant to the case on hand reads as follows: ‘9. Preference shall be given to the following categories: i. Visually challenged employees. II. Employees who have mentally challenged children and are seeking a transfer to a station where relevant medical facilities are available. lii. Employees seeking transfer on medical grounds (pertaining to self, spouse, or dependent children), on account of chronic diseases such as Caner, Open Heart Operations, Neurosurgery, Kidney Transplantation etc., to stations where such medical facilities are available. Employees with disabilities of 40% IV. or more as certified by a competent authority as per the norms of “personal with disabilities”. Female employees who are widow appointed on compassionate grounds will be posted preferably in their choice station subject to administrative exigencies. 10. The visually challenged employees are exempt from transfers, except when a specific request is made. Subject to the availability of a clear vacancy, these categories of employees may be posted as far as possible at a place of their choice.” V. 11) Clause 10 of the said G.O. makes it amply clear that the visually challenged employees are exempted from transfer except when a specific request is made. Further, subject to availability of a clear vacancy, the categories of employees referred to in clause 9 have to be posted as far as possible at a place of their choice. It is not the case of the department that the respondent / writ petitioner, who is visually impaired person made any request for transfer nor was any material placed before the learned single Judge which would establish that the impugned transfer proceedings were issued r 6 considering the request of the respondent-writ petitioner. In the absence of the this Court see no reason to take a different view as that of the learned single Judge that the department despite guidelines and without any request transfer of the respondent-writ petitioner, that the same suffers of arbitrariness. This Court is also not impressed with the argument same effected the from vice to the effect that the respondent-writ petitioner is transferred within the In the guidelines extracted supra, any transfer, more Vijayawada town, particularly in case of the visually challenged employees or other category employees referred to in para-9 cannot be made, except on a specific request that too, at a place of their choice. The impugned proceedings are contrary to G.O.Ms.No.170 dated 22.08.2024, and the order of the learned Single Judge is valid and does not suffer any illegality. This Court see no reason muchless valid grounds to interfere with the order under challenge. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the Appeal is dismissed. No order as 12) to costs. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. 13) Sd/- WI.RASViESH BABU deputy REG'iSTRmR //TRUE COPY// W ^ ' SECTION OFFICER To High Court of Andhra Pradesh 1. Two CCS to GP for Services-I 2. One CC to Smt. Kavitha Gottipati, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies. ssb % HIGH COURT DATED:24/06/2025 JUDGMENT WANO.710OF 2025 S( 2 9 JUL 2025 ^ysQiffent SectioflX^y ^^■^PATCV\^^ DISMISSING THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS