A:JHC01 0325262025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESIT AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, THE CHIEF JUSTI(^ AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 16508 OF 2025 ^ Between: Sri K Ramesh Babu, S/o.K.Jacob, age 45 years Constable, P.C.8102, TS/499 of VC of NTR Police Commissionerate, Vijayawada city, presently working at SHO, Vijayawada city Occ: Police Bhavanipuram P.S., ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Chief Secretary to Government of A.P., Secretariate, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 3. The Director General of Police, DGP Office Mangalagiri, Guntur District, A.P. 4. The Commissioner of Police, NTR Police Commissionerate, Vijayawada city, NTR district. 5. The State of Telengana, rep. By its Chief Secretary, Government of Telengana, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 6. The State of Telengana, rep.by its. Principal Secretary, Hdme Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 7. The Director General of Police, Telengana State, Hyderabad. 8. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad Telengana State ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus calling for records and declare that i) the action of respondents 1 to 4 in not according consent/No objection for the permanent transfer of the petitioner from the State of Telengana to the State of Andhra Pradesh despite of consent and No objection given by the State of Telengana by Circular Memo No.1896/SPF-ll/2021 dated 9-9-2021 for permanent transfer of employees willing to go to Andhra permanent basis and without considering the representations of the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, unjust ii) that the action of the respondent No.3 and 4 in issuing the impugned order dated 19-6-2025 relieving the petitioner from the SHO, Bhavanipuam P.S., NTR Police Commissionerate, Vijayawada with instruction to report before 8th respondent despite the NOC/Consent Memo dated 9-9-2021 issued by the respondents 7 and 8 and without consideration Pradesh on of representations of the petitioners dated 23-6-2025,4-10- 2021,19-2-2018, 23-8-2018 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India besides contrary to the clause 5(2) and 5(2)5(d) of Presidential orders and provisions of A.P.State Reorganization Act, 2014 and violation of principles of natural justice lii) consequentially direct the respondents 1 to 4 to forth with accord consent/NOC for permanent transfer of the petitioner from the State of Telengana to the State of Andhra pradesh duly considering the circular Memo NO.1896/SPF-II/2021 dated 9-9-2021 of the respondents 7 and 8 and the continuous representations of the petitioners made to the respondents in the interests of justice. lA NO: 1 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 stay all further proceedings of the impugned order dated 19-6-2025 passed by the respondent No.3 and 4 in relieving the petitioner from the SHO, Bhavanipuam P.S., NTR Police Commissionerate, Vijayawada with instruction to report before 8th respondent by continuing the petitioner in the existing post at Bhavanipuram police Station, Vijayawada city of NTR Police Commissionerate pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P A SESHU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following order: APHC010325262025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Sr.No:-i7 [3483] AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 16508 of 2025 Sri K. Ramesh Babu ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ic-k-k-k-k-k-ki!** Advocate for petitioner Advocate for respondents Sri P. A. Seshu Learned Government Pleader for Services -1 CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 8th July 2025 Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR. CJ (Oral): The petitioner came to be appointed as a Police Constable in the year 2008 in Hyderabad in the combined State of Andhra Pradesh. On the bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh in the year 2014, the petitioner continued to work as a Constable under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad for the State of Telangana. 2. A Circular Memo dated 06.10.2017 came to be issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Government of Telangana in terms of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 77 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 (for short, “the Act”), which mandates that employees of Local, pr Y District, Zona! and Mutti-zonal cadres, which fall entirely in one of the 2 Successor States shall be deemed to be allotted to that Successor State. However, on receipt of representations from some of the Local Cadre Employees as also the State Cadre Employees as well for transfer to the other State where their spouses are working or for mutual transfers on grounds of their local candidature etc., the State Advisory Committee on Employees Allocation recommended to evolve a transitory policy on interstate transfers of State Government employees on spouse and other grounds between the two States as the provisions in A.P. Reorganisation Act and the guidelines on allocation of State Cadre employees do not provide for dealing with such cases. The Government, accordingly, by virtue of Circular Memo dated 3. 06.10.2017 ordered thus;- Accordingly, Govt, after careful consideration issue the following guidelines for interstate deputations of employees working in State Government (Local Cadre and State Cadre), State Government Institutions and Local Bodies on spouse grounds: '5. Employee seeking interstate deputation shall be a regular employee whose services are regularized such employee has to apply to the Head of Department / Institution concerned through the proper channel in the prescribed proforma appended. a) The Departments / Institutions proposing interstate deputation of employees on spouse grounds shall invariably furnish information in the proforma annexed to this circular b) 3 duly signed by the Head of the Office / Department or Institution to the Spl. Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary/Secretary to Government of Department concerned after the verification. Only one of the spouses shall be deputed to the other State where the other spouse is working on a regular basis in Central Government, Central Government Public Sectors, Universities, Local Bodies, Scheduled Banks, State Government and State Government Institutions. c) d) e) On receipt of the application from the employee, the Spl. Chief Secretary / PrI. Secretary / Secretary to Govt, of the Department of the State shall address a communication in writing to the Spl. Chief Secretary / Principal Secretary / Secretary to Govt, of the Department concerned in the other State for which the employee is seeking deputation. f) On receipt of the acceptance of the proposal in writing by the Spl. Chief Secretaries / Principal Secretaries / Secretaries to Govt, of the Department concerned of the other State necessary orders shall be issued to that effect and the employees shall be relieved by the Head of the Institutions concerned duly making an entry in the Service Register without fail. 9) The deputation shall be initially for a period of three years extendable by another two years. h) No application for deputation shall be accepted, if there is no clear vacancy to the post for which the applicant has sought for deputation.” i) 4 The petitioner claims that pursuant to the issuance of the Circular Memo dated 06.10.2017, the petitioner applied for being transferred to the State of Andhra Pradesh, which was considered and an order was passed dated 13.05.2019 after the State of Telangana gave its no objection to the interstate deputation from Telangana to Andhra Pradesh State. Accordingly, the petitioner stood deputed on spouse ground by virtue of order dated 13.05.2019 by the Government of Telangana for a period of three years. Based upon the order dated 13.05.2019, consequential order dated 10.06.2019 was passed by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City. While the period of deputation of three years had since expired, the Office of the Commissioner of Police, N.T.R. Police Commissionerate, Vijayawada City, by virtue of order dated 19.06.2025, relieved the petitioner to report before the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City for further duties. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner could not have been relieved inasmuch as his application for permanent 5. absorption in the State of Andhra Pradesh in terms of Circular Memo dated 07.08.2017 had yet not been considered by the State of Andhra Pradesh. 6. Reliance is also placed upon a Circular Memo dated 09.09.2021 issued by the Government of Telangana whereby, it was decided to convey the State Government’s No objection to Government of Andhra Pradesh in respect of such officers who are willing to go to Andhra Pradesh on permanent basis. The said Circular Memo also prescribes the methodology by which an 5 employee who seeks such a transfer to Andhra Pradesh could apply and in particular, apply to his or her Head of the Department on or before 15**^ of October, 2021. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had since applied even before the cutoff date prescribed. It is stated that even when an application has been made by the petitioner to the Head of the Department, yet, no decision has been taken and no recommendations made to the State of Andhra Pradesh. While the petitioner’s concern is that he could not be relieved and he 8. should be made to continue to work in Andhra Pradesh, the difficulty is that his period of deputation has come to an end, which is only for a period of three years extendable by an another two years, which too has expired if the period is calculated from the year 2019. In the absence of any recommendation from the State of Telangana in terms of the procedure prescribed under Circular Memo dated 09.09.2021, and in view of the fact that the deputation period of the petitioner in the State of Andhra Pradesh has already come to an end, we find it legally difficult to issue directions to continue him in Andhra Pradesh despite the fact that he 9. had been since relieved. To us, it appears that the cause of action to the petitioner accrues within the State of Telangana inasmuch as it is the State of Tetangana which has till 10. 6 now not taken any specific decision to recommend or to reject the application filed by the petitioner, which was filed before the cutoff date prescribed. It is only on the basis of a recommendation made in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Circular Memo dated 09.09.2021 and on receipt thereof alone that the Government of Andhra Pradesh could take a call whether to permanently absorb the petitioner within the State of Andhra Pradesh or not in case there was any such policy to absorb such employees. To us, it appears that the circulars issued in the year 2017 were only a transitory mechanism which had to be followed by sending the applicants who are similarly situate as the petitioner, on deputation, only for a period of three years extendable by an another period of two years. The Circular Memo dated 07.08.2017 was, in our opinion, never intended to create any specific rights in the petitioner beyond what was agreed between the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. 11. Even when a pointed question was posed to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether there had been any decision by the State of Andhra Pradesh subsequently to absorb permanently such of the employees who wished to get absorbed in the State of Andhra Pradesh pursuant to the Circular dated 09.09.2021 issued by the State of Telangana, it was stated that to the knowledge of the counsel, no such policy decision or circular was in existence. 12. 7 Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that primarily, there was never any policy or decision taken by the State of Andhra Pradesh to permanently absorb the employees who were working in the State of working in the State of Telangana on the ground that his/her spouse was Andhra Pradesh. If that was so, then the case to get permanently absorbed in the State of Andhra Pradesh is not sustainable and since the right was limited to remain within the jurisdiction of this state to the period of deputation, that right also no longer exists as the period is over. 14. Be that as it may, we do not find any merit in the present petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. 15. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER SE' To, 1. One CC to Sri. P A Seshu Advocate [OPUC] GP for Services I, High Court of Andhra Prades]340UT] 2. Two CCs to 3. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:08/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 16508 OF 2025 DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS