S RAMULU S/O S CHANDRAIAH Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA, REP BY ITS PRL SECRETARTY, PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT ,SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Observations of Professor Bernard Schwartz in his book Administrative Law, (3rd Edn.) [referred to by Honble Supreme Court in Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. Anilbhai Nathubhai Patel and others, 2006 8 SCC 200] aptly apply to this case. He said, .Due deference to the agency does not mean abdication of the duty of judicial review and rubber-stamping of agency action: [W]e must accord the agency considerable, but not too much deference; it is entitled to exercise its discretion, but only so far and no further. The issue in this case is whether the administrative authority crossed Lakshmana Rekha in exercising his discretion to transfer petitioner warranting judicial interdiction.

(2.) Petitioner is working as Deputy Executive Engineer in Panchayat Raj Sub-division, Kothur in Ranga Reddy district. According to petitioner, he was posted to this sub-division on order to serve basis by the Government and assumed charge of the sub- division on 11.10.2016. By the order impugned, he is now transferred and posted as Personal Assistant to Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Mahabubnagar.

(3.) 3.1. According to learned counsel for petitioner, petitioner has not completed five years of stay in the present place of posting and, therefore, he is not subjected to transfer counselling process. The place occupied by him is not shown as vacancy and no person opted to the place occupied by him. While so, after completion of transfer counselling, by independent proceedings, petitioner is transferred as Personal Assistant to Superintending Engineer and in his place, 5th respondent is posted. According to learned counsel, even 5th respondent has not opted to this place. He opted to Abdullahpurmet, where there is a clear vacancy and in fact, in the transfer exercise 5th respondents request to transfer to Abdullahpurmet was accepted. However, later, for the reasons best known, the impugned transfer orders are issued disturbing the petitioner and, in his place, 5th respondent is posted. By the impugned decision, petitioner was also deprived of his entitlement to participate in transfer counselling.