Common Judgment:

A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J.

I. Introductory:-

                  [a] A batch writ petitions [in 26 Nos.] vide W.P.Nos.16968, 16981, 16982, 16984, 16986, 16987, 16997, 16999, 17002, 17004, 17050, 17541, 17549, 17810, 17852, 17864, 17865, 17872, 17873, 17878, 17882, 17990, 18072, 18126, 18750, 18846 of 2025 were disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide common order dated 11.08.2025.

                  [b] In respect of the Writ Petition No.16981 of 2025, pertaining to the NTR [erstwhile Krishna] District, two Appeals were filed vide W.A.Nos.960 and 961 of 2025; in respect of W.P.No.17004 of 2025 pertaining to the Kurnool district, two Appeals are filed vide W.A.No.1004 and 1005 of 2025;

                  W.A.No.960 of 2025:-

                  [c] The respondent No.7 in W.P.No.16981 of 2025 filed the appeal in W.A.No.960 of 2025. The writ petitioner is respondent No.1. The respondents No.2 to 7 herein are the official respondents 1 to 6 and respondent No.8, 9 herein are the unofficial respondents No.8 and 9 in the Writ Petition.

                  W.A.No.961 of 2025:-

                  [d] Respondent Nos. 10 to 39 in W.A.No.960 of 2025 are the respondents 29 to 58 in W.A.No.961 of 2025 and the respondents No.40 to 57 are the respondents No.11 to 28 in W.A.No.961 of 2025. The contentions of the impleaded parties as respondents 10 to 57 in W.A.No.960 of 2025 and the respondents No.11 to 58 in W.A.No.961 are one and the same.

                  [e] This appeal is also directed against the orders in W.P.No.16981 of 2025, which is filed by the third parties. The appellants (13 in number) from NTR district filed I.A.No.2 of 2025 in W.A.No.961 of 2025 to grant leave to present the appeal as they were not parties to the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the same is ordered. Respondent No.1 in the appeal is the writ petitioner. The respondents No.2 to 7 are the respondents 1 to 6 and the respondents No.8 to 10 are the respondents No.7 to 9 in the Writ Petition. Thereafter, respondents 11 to 58 are impleaded as per the orders dated 17.11.2025.

                  W.A.No.1004 and 1005 of 2025:-

                  [f] Both the appeals in W.A.Nos.1004 and 1005 of 2025 are pertaining to the Kurnool district, and questioning the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.17004 of 2025. The respondents No.21,28,16,10 and 17 in the said Writ Petition filed the appeal in W.A.No.1004 of 2025. Whereas the appellants in W.A.No.1005 of 2025 are the third parties filed the appeal contending that they are the affected parties. The unofficial respondent Nos.1 to 16 and 23 to 40 are the same in both the Writ Appeals and they are the writ petitioners [No.1 to 16] and respondents No.7 to 30 in the Writ Petition. The respondents No.17 to 22 in the Writ Appeals are the respondents 1 to 6 in the Writ Petition. They are the official respondents.

II. Factual backdrop and the issue involved in the Writ Petitions:-

2. [i] Appointments to the post of Village Agricultural Assistant Grade-II were made in the year 2019 through the DSC, and postings were effected at various Gram Panchayats. In the process of rationalisation, the Government of A.P., Department of Agriculture, issued G.O.Ms.No.01, GSWS department dated 25.01.2025 for rationalising the Village/Ward Secretariats and functionaries to ensure effective implementation of Real Time Governance at Village/Ward level. Thereafter, G.O.Ms.No.3 GSWS department dated 10.04.2025 was issued positioning of various designations. Subsequently, for grouping of Secretariats, fixing of positions for specific purpose at village/ward level was done under G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 17.05.2025. Thereafter, G.O.Ms.No.5, dated 12.06.2025 was issued giving certain guidelines for transfer of functionaries.

                  [ii] As per the said G.O.Ms.No.5, longstanding employees, station wise seniority list to be prepared and transfers are to be effected. Since the appointments have been taken place under the same notification, seniority was fixed with reference to the date of birth. When transfers are scheduled, the writ petitions are came to be filed questioning the transfers on various grounds, alleging that the transfers are not in accordance with the guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.5, dated 12.06.2025 and that the letters issued by public representatives like MLAs., and M.Ps. were alone considered. Those letters are not mere suggesting transfers but they are directing the place of posts also. Hence, the transfers are not valid. Therefore, the core issue is whether the transfers are effected in terms of G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 12.06.2025 or whether the letters issued by the public representatives overweighed the transfer policy in terms of G.O.Ms.No.5.

III. Contention in the Writ Petitions:-

3. There is violation of G.O.Ms.No.5 and the options given by the employees were not considered and the recommendation of the public representatives alone prevailed over the rule, therefore, the transfers are bad in law.

IV. Contention of the official respondents before the learned Single Judge are –

4. No counter was filed on behalf of the official respondents, but hearing has taken place and following oral submissions of the official respondents were considered by the learned Single Judge, on pleading the urgency:

                  (i) There are no malafides.

                  (ii) Transfer Policy covered by G.O.Ms.No.5 is not violated.

                  (iii) Transfer is an incident of the employment. Therefore, the writ petitions are not maintainable.

                  (iv) The public representatives espousing the cause of the employees seeking transfers is not bad as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere.

V. Orders of the learned Single Judge:-

5. In respect of Kurnool and Krishna Districts, the letters as well as the conduct and manner in which the transfers were effected, particularly time granted for submission of options and effecting of transfers without any breathing gap shows the irregularity. Further, the application of either discretion or rationality in effecting the transfers in respect of these two districts, is not found. Therefore, the same shall require revisit in view of apparent clouds over the propriety of transfers effected. Hence, the transfer orders in respect of those two districts shall stand set aside and there shall be fresh transfers.

6. The Government did not choose to file any appeal. But as per the counter affidavit filed on the directions of this Court, the prayer of the Government is to dismiss the writ appeals.

VI. Contentions in the Appeals:-

In W.A.No.960 of 2025:-

7. [i] The appellant in W.A.No.960 of 2025 is contending that the orders under challenge are not sustainable and liable to be set aside for the reasons –

                  (a) The transfers are in terms of the transfer policy and not exclusively based on the letters of public representatives.

                  (b) The transfers are completed and effected. Therefore, directing fresh transfers will prejudicially affect the rights of the appellants.

                  (c) At the instance of challenge of some candidates disturbing all the candidates is not correct.

                  (d) The writ petitioners, who have questioned the transfers have also submitted the letters of public representatives. Therefore, there are no bonafides on their part.

In W.A.No.961 of 2025:-

8. The appellants in W.A.No.961 of 2025 are not parties in the Writ Petition but they have filed appeal seeking leave and they have also added certain parties said to have been effected. Their grounds are also on par with the grounds of the appellant in W.A.No.960 of 2025. They have prayed for setting aside the orders of the learned Single Judge.

In W.A.No.1004 of 2025:-

9. [i] The appellants in 1004 of 2025 are the respondents Nos.21,28,16,10 and 17 in the writ petition. Their prayer is for dismissal of the writ petition and setting aside the orders of the learned Single Judge on the ground the transfer was effected on the clear policy and guidelines covered by G.O.Ms.No.5, dated 12.06.2025.

                  [ii] Five years stay has been completed. The appellants have joined in their respective transferred places and they are also drawing salaries.

                  [iii] If fresh counselling is conducted, the transfers are effected, the families will get disturbed.

                  [iv] The process of transfers need not be interfered by the Courts unless clear malafides are established and the learned Single Judge ought not to have set aside the transfers.

                  [v] Learned Single Judge has passed the orders without providing opportunity to the unofficial respondents.

In W.A.No.1005 of 2025:-

10. The appellants in W.A.No.1005 of 2025 are the third parties and claiming that the they are affected parties, hence, filed the appeal, on the same grounds urged by the appellants in W.A.No.1004 of 2025 and prayed for setting aside the orders of the learned Single Judge.

For the Official Respondents:-

11. The Government Pleader for Services I and II appearing for the State would submit that the writ appeals are liable to be dismissed.

VII. Scope of the appeals :-

12. [i] The writ petitioners questioned the transfers on the ground that the public representatives’ letters overweighed the merit of the individuals. In service jurisprudence, whether the cause espoused by an individual alone is to be considered, or when a cause is exposed, the same shall be considered in its entirety even against a party, who is not before the Court, like in Public Interest Litigation, is a question. Apparently, the writ is filed questioning the non-consideration of the merit of writ petitioners and to the extent of considering the posting of the respondents on the basis of letters of the public representatives, particularly in the context of writ petitioners ceasing to have the opportunity of posting at a particularly place to which they have opted. Then, the scope of orders of the writ petition should have been confined to the individual causes inter se writ petitioners and unofficial respondents, who are affected. Here, the orders are passed in general and in respect of unofficial respondents even without notice to them. Therefore, their grievance is justified. The scope of examination of propriety of the transfers between the writ petitioner and the persons arrayed as respondents, particularly the persons, who are posted at the places opted by the writ petitioners, and suitability inter se the writ petitioner and the other person posted at the optioned places of the writ petitioners, whether properly considered or it is on account of extraneous considerations, alone shall be the subject matter of the writ petition. However, the orders passed in the Writ Petition travelled beyond the required ambit. Hence, require interference.

[ii] Further the scope of writ petitions appeal shall be among the writ petitioners and the unofficial respondents or even it can stretched to an extent of the persons, who are opted and posted at the places chosen by the writ petitioners. In respect of certain writ petitions allowed by the learned Single Judge, there are no appeals by the State. Naturally, the petitioners therein will not come in the appeal. The unofficial respondents therein, since not served with the notice, had no opportunity. Therefore, they require an opportunity to place their options before the officers. However, such exercise shall be confined to the writ petitioners, in respect of whom the writs are allowed and became final and in respect of writ parties covered by the present writ appeals in W.A.No.960, 961, 1004 and 1005 of 2025 and the unofficial respondents therein.

13. Perused the impugned orders and the material available on record.

14. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides.

15. The points that arise for determination in these appeals are –

                  1) Whether the orders in W.P.No.16981 of 2025 setting aside the questioned transfers in respect of NTR District covered by W.A.No.960 of 2025 and W.A.No.961 of 2025 are proper?

                  2) Whether orders in W.P.No.17004 of 2025 setting aside the questioned transfers covered by W.A.No.1004 of 2025 and W.A.No.1005 of 2025 in respect of Kurnool Districts are sustainable in law or require any interference?

                  3) What is the result of the appeal in W.A.No.960 of 2025?

                  4) What is the result of the appeal in W.A.No.961 of 2025?

                  5) What is the result of the appeal in W.A.No.1004 of 2025?

                  6) What is the result of the appeal in W.A.No.1005 of 2025?

Merits:-

16. With regard to the merits in appeals in W.A.No.960, 961, 1004 and 1005 of 2025, the grounds canvassed are that:-

                  (1) The allegation that authority, who transferred has no jurisdiction is not correct. The transfers are ordered by the appointing authority, therefore, the allegation is not tenable.

                  (2) In respect of scope of interference with the transfer orders and restraint to be exercised by Courts and the permissibility of letters of public representatives for transfers, learned Single Judge referred to the following authorities vide Shilpi Bose (Mrs) and Others V. State of Bihar and Others(1991 Supp(2) SCC 659), Major General J.K. Bansal  Vs. Union of India(2005 (7) SCC 227), and Sri Publi Lombi V. The State of Arunachal Pradesh and Others(2024 Supreme (SC)225).

                  (3) But, learned single Judge found that in respect of Kurnool and Krishna Districts the letters of public representatives overweighed the Policy and the transfers are substantially based on the letters of Public representatives only and that the place of postings are also mentioned in the letters, therefore, fresh exercise is necessary.

Point No.1 & 2:-

17. The contention of the appellants is that the writ petitions are allowed in respect of Kurnool and NTR (erstwhile Krishna) Districts directing fresh counselling without issuing any notice to them.

18. A. In respect of the appeals pertaining to NTR District:-

                  [i] (a) In W.A.No.960 of 2025, there is only one appellant, who is respondent No.7 in the writ petition No.16981 of 2025.

                  (b) In W.A.No.961 of 2025 there are (13) appellants.

                  [ii] Both the appeals in W.A.No.960 and 961 of 2025 are pertaining to NTR (Krishna) District.

                  B. In respect of the appeals pertaining to Kurnool District:-

                  [i] In W.A.No.1004 of 2025 there are (5) appellants and in W.A.No.1005 of 2025, there are (19) appellants.

19. The objection of appellants in W.A.No.960 and 961 of 2025, W.A.No.1004 and 1005 of 2025 is that their transfers are proper, setting aside their transfers is not correct and directing fresh transfer will affect their interest. In respect of Kurnool district, out of 454 individuals, there are (24) appellants questioning the cancellation of transfer. In respect of NTR District (14) appellants are objecting out of total transfers of 476 individuals. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that G.O.Ms.No.5 of 2025 is not followed and the public representatives’ letters in respect of those two districts overweighed. The said fact is to be disputed by the authorities. They requested for disposal of the writ petitions pressing the urgency and did not choose to file the appeal. This suggests that the authorities are ready to take up the fresh exercise.

20. [i] The grievance of the appellants, is that no notice was issued to them, contending that their transfers are not on recommendations alone and they have merits and fresh exercise ordered by the learned Single Judge will not be prejudicial to the writ appellants.

                  [ii] The writ petition orders are not prohibiting postings them at the same places when fresh exercise takes place. The interest of the appellants in W.A.No.1004 and 1005 of 2025 and W.A.Nos.960 and 961 of 2025, will not be effected on fresh exercise, as their choices and consideration of their choices is still open to the authorities.

21. The learned Single Judge, having found the convincing reasons from the context of the number of letters and suggesting places of transfer and absence of much time for counselling etc., has held that fresh transfers are necessary, but ordering fresh transfers in respect of all the persons will effect the administration, as rightly contended by the learned Government Pleaders for Services I & II and would also widen the scope of litigation. Since neither the Writ Petition nor the Writ Appeal is in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation, the relief can be confined to the extent of the writ petitioners and the unofficial respondents, who opted for the same places as the writ petitioners opted. If the fresh transfers takes place the merits the parties possess do not get altered, and the authorities shall consider the merits in terms of G.O.Ms.No.5, dated 12.06.2025, and the exercise shall be completed by the end of March.

Clarification with regard to the interim orders:-

22. [i] In I.A.No.2 of 2025 in W.A.No.960 of 225, orders in W.P.No.16981 of 2025 dated 04.09.2025 of the learned Single Judge were suspended.

                  [ii] In W.A.No.961 of 2025 filed by the third parties, which was also directed against the W.P.No.16981 of 2025 in I.A.No.3 of 2025 status quo was ordered.

                  [iii] When the matter was pending before the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition initially status quo orders were passed.

                  [iv] In the final orders of the Writ Petition, fresh counselling and transfers was directed in respect of Kurnool and Krishna Districts by the learned Single Judge.

                  [v] In I.A.No.2 of 2025 when the orders of the learned Single Judge are suspended, the direction as to effecting fresh transfers shall stand suspended. Then the question would be whether the transfers questioned in the writ petition shall be given effect. But, the said transfers are subject matter of the Writ Petition consequently covered by the Writ Appeals.

                  [vi] As per the orders in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in W.A.No.961 of 2025 the order of status quo will operate then the transfers questioned in Writ Petition need not be given effect.

                  [vii] Therefore, the suspension order in W.A.No.960 of 2025 will have effect of not to entertain the transfers in terms of the orders of the learned Single Judge and status quo ordered in W.A.No.961 of 2025, will operate as not to give effect to the transfers which were questioned in the Writ Petition.

                  [viii] However, this situation shall be pertaining to the writ petitioners only covered by W.A.No.960 and 961 of 2025.

                  [ix] This shall be the clarification with regard to the interim orders in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in W.A.No.960 of 2025 and in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in W.A.No.961 of 2025.

23. In view of the above discussion and the reasons stated above, in the result, these Writ Appeals are disposed of as follows:

                  1) There shall be fresh transfers in respect of parties in the writ appeals including the unofficial respondents.

                  2) The writ petitioners, appellants and the unofficial respondents, wherever joined will continue at the same place till then.

                  3) The employees who have not joined in any place, shall be immediately adjusted in the places, where they were prior to the status quo orders and consequential adjustment shall be in the same way.

                  4) The options given by the writ petitioners, unofficial respondents, at the time of submission of their transfer applications prior to the litigation, shall be the basis for effecting and adjusting the transfers.

                  5) The posting and adjustments shall be strictly in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 12.06.2025 and the same shall be addressed candidate wise, with reasons accommodating or inability to accommodate.

                  6) The option given shall not be final say to demand posting at that particular place. The exercise of transfers shall be completed by March 2026.

                  7) No order as to costs.

                  8) As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.