Challa Gunaranjan, J.

1. Present writ petition challenges validity of Section 11 of Andhra Pradesh State Teachers Transfers Regulation Act, 2025 (Act No.9 of 2025) (herein after, for short ‘the Act’), insofar as it excludes spouses of army personnel from being considered under preferential category for the purpose of the transfers to be wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India.

2. (a) Petitioners, four in number, are working as Special Grade Teachers at different locations and commonality among them being that they are all spouses of army personnel. Their spouses stated to be positioned at different locations serving for Indian Army. Now, under the present exercise of transfers undertaken by the respondents, petitioners have sought for preferential treatment compared to other Special Grade Teachers under guise of army spouse category.

                  (b) It is claimed that the Government of Andhra Pradesh had earlier issued G.O.Ms.No.47, School Education (Services.II) Department, dated 22.05.2023, prescribing Andhra Pradesh Teachers (Regulation of transfers) Rules, which inter alia in Rule 9(j) envisaged preferential treatment for spouses of the service personnel in Army/Navy/Air Force, over other candidates for the purpose of transfers. However, now the State of Andhra Pradesh has come up with the above said Act, 2025 to regulate the transfers of teachers, which departed with earlier Rules in extending preferential treatment to aforesaid category.

                  (c) The scheme of the Act envisages awarding of station points based on number of years of service in respective schools, service points to be awarded for every completed year of service in all cadres, special points to certain of the category of Head Master Gr.II/Teachers and preferential category for category of persons specifically notified on account of various challenges faced. In the process of online counselling, based on points to be secured by candidates as referred to above, the candidatures would be considered for the purpose of transfers.

                  (d) It is stated that Section 11 of the Act, which provided for preferential category, has conspicuously excluded the spouses of service personnel in Indian Army, who otherwise were considered under preferential category in the previous regime, which is claimed to be arbitrary, discriminatory and against the Government’s declared policy. Therefore, Section 11 was sought to be declared to be ultra vires.

3. (a) The State has filed counter opposing the writ petition.

                  It is admitted that the earlier Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.47, dated 22.05.2023, did contemplate providing for preferential treatment to spouses of service personnel working in Indian Army. However, due to advent of shift in the policy and also the enactment of Act No.9 of 2025, which intended to regulate the transfers of teachers in all schools across the board to be in compliance with the requirements of maintaining pupil teacher ratio within PRT norms prescribed under Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and further, for ensuring optimum utilization of manpower for effective academic support to the student, and also addressing dominant conditions in effecting transfers including administrative exigencies, ground and organizational reasons, a comprehensive legislation was brought in.

                  (b) Section 11 of the Act provided for preferential treatment for transfers to only such of those category of candidates who either have serious medical ailments by themselves or to immediate family members and widows without remarriage. Further, by exercising powers under Section 26 of the Act, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.22, School Education (Services.II) Department, dated 20.05.2025, prescribing Andhra Pradesh State Teachers (Regulation of Transfers) Rules, 2025.

                  (c) In terms of Rule 7, the spouses of service personnel in Indian Army were awarded 5 special points, giving due consideration to such category. Rule 7 also provides for special points for other categories of teachers as well, which by themselves fall within a sub-classification. The categorization and classification made for the purpose of awarding special points and extending preferential treatment is claimed to be reasonable and not arbitrary, and has a rational nexus with intended objective of ensuring equitable and merit-based deployment of teaching staff. Hence, the same at no stretch of imagination would fall foul of Article 14 of Constitution of India.

4. Heard Mr.Gundala Sivaprasad Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently contended that Section 11 of the Act, insofar as excluding the spouses of army personnel from being considered as preferential category for the purpose of transfers, is clearly discriminative and hence to be unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India. He further contended that when spouses of army personnel were extended the benefit of preferential category in the earlier regime under Andhra Pradesh Teachers (Regulations of transfers) Rules, 2023, taking away such benefit and enacting the impugned legislation is clearly arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. Therefore, he contended that necessary directions be issued to legislature for inclusion of spouses of personnel in Indian Army under preferential category by amending Section 11 of the Act.

6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for respondents contended that the writ petition is devoid of any merits inasmuch as the impugned legislation that is sought to be struck down is not demonstrated to be lacking legislative competence or violates any of fundamental rights in Part III of Constitution of India, nor there is any manifest arbitrariness in bringing out such legislation. He further contended that the legislature did have power to make the impugned legislation and Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Act envisages station points, service points, special points and preferential category for the purpose of transfers of teachers to be undertaken through online counselling and clear classification has been made in terms of aforesaid provisions as to who are all entitled for the respective treatments, further Rule 7(v) provided for awarding five special points for the spouses of service personnel in Indian Army, therefore, it cannot be said that the category under which petitioners claim to be falling were completely excluded from consideration in the process of transfers.

7. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions.

8. It is trite law that legislation can be invalidated only when the enacting legislature lacks legislative competence or where there is violation of fundamental rights. As the challenge to the present writ petition is to the substantive legislation, it has to be seen whether the legislature was lacking competence, nor the legislation would fall foul of the fundamental rights. Petitioners have pleaded that the impugned legislation offended Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as, the category of spouses of army personnel were excluded from being considered for the purpose of transfers under special category, which amounted to sheer discrimination. Petitioners are, as that matter spouses of ex-service personnel, by themselves have not demonstrated as to how they fall under particular special category to be equated on par with the candidates who have been classified under preferential category. Section 11 of the Act bestows preferential category for the candidates having severe health ailments, either by themselves or to their immediate family members, besides widows who continues to be unmarried. Clearly such category of persons referred to form themselves into a separate class unequatable with the petitioners' category. This Court, therefore, does not see that there is any amount of discrimination qua petitioners. It is not as though petitioners were left out, inasmuch as they have been duly awarded special points along with other similarly situated categories of candidates by encircling them under a separate class. Unless it is shown that such classification is manifestly arbitrary, besides pointing out to be unconstitutional, a law may not be struck down as laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kalpana Mehta and others v. Union of India and others((2018) 7 SCC 1) and State of A.P. and others v. Mcdowell & Co. and others((1996) 3 SCC 709).

9. Coming to the other contention of learned counsel for petitioners regarding issuance of directions to the legislature to amend Section 11 of the Act, the law in this regard is well settled. No constitutional court can issue writ of mandamus to legislature to enact a law under a particular subject in a particular manner as laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India and others v. K.Pushpavanam and others((2023) 20 SCC 736).

10. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. No costs.

                  As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed.