Mass Transfers Fixed by MLAs and MPs a Blow to Transparency — AP High Court Orders Re-Counselling for Kurnool & Krishna

“One or two genuine recommendations can be tolerated — but not when the list runs into hundreds”, Andhra Pradesh High Court delivered a significant ruling, where Village Agricultural Assistants Grade-II challenged the mass transfer orders of June 2025.
Justice Nyapathy Vijay drew a sharp line between permissible political recommendations and wholesale administrative capture, remarking that “one odd individual on genuine personal grounds can definitely be recommended for transfer by public representatives; however, recommendations in mass scale fixing both transfer and posting dehors the policy are impermissible.”

The Court found that in the erstwhile Kurnool and Krishna districts, the record revealed over 115 and over 102 functionaries respectively whose transfers and postings were dictated by letters from MLAs and MPs, often in tabulated lists that left the authorities as “mute witnesses.” This, the Judge said, defeated the State’s own attempt to “bring in transparency and minimise arbitrariness” through G.O.Ms.No.23 (15.05.2025) and G.O.Ms.No.5 (12.06.2025).

The Road to Court

The petitioners were appointed in 2019 through DSC and posted to various Gram Panchayats. When the Government initiated its 2025 rationalisation and positioning exercise, it issued G.O.Ms.No.5 providing for transparent, seniority-based transfers. In Kurnool and Krishna, all appointees shared the same joining year, so the administration used date of birth as the tiebreaker for inter se seniority.

Counselling in Kurnool took place on 29–30 June 2025 for 454 candidates, while in Krishna it was held on 28–29 June for 476 candidates. The petitioners alleged the process was an empty formality: options were taken manually, and transfer orders were issued on the very same day, in exact conformity with MLA/MP letters. “The exercise of calling for options,” they said, “was only for name-sake and the Respondents had already decided the entire transfer policy.”

Judicial Restraint — But Not When Public Interest is Abandoned

Citing the Supreme Court’s caution in Shilpi Bose that courts “should not interfere with a transfer order… unless made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide,” Justice Vijay acknowledged that transfers are generally an incident of service. But he noted this principle assumes that orders are made in public interest, not in execution of political dictates.

Referring to Mohd. Masood Ahmad, the Court reiterated that a recommendation by a legislator “by itself would not vitiate the transfer order.” Yet, what happened in Kurnool and Krishna went far beyond that — it was not a matter of individual cases, but “postings in mass scale… at the instance of public representatives,” which “would give an impression of parallel administration and abdication of duty.”

Transparency Mandate Undermined

Clause 8 of G.O.Ms.No.5 mandated the District Collector to position and transfer functionaries “in a most transparent and time-bound manner without giving any scope for allegations.” Instead, in Kurnool and Krishna, the Court found that “the District Collector/Appointing Authority merely approved the recommendations without any reference to G.O.Ms.No.5… and remained a mute witness.”

This was the first transfer since the 2019 recruitment, a fact the Court said required “a greater degree of caution and transparency.” The hurried manual counselling, followed by immediate orders matching MLA/MP lists, failed that standard.

On the DAO’s Jurisdiction

An additional attack in Krishna was that the District Agricultural Officer lacked authority to issue the transfers. This was rejected. The Judge explained that by G.O.Ms.No.35 (30.01.2020), the Joint Director of Agriculture was made the appointing authority, and by G.O.Ms.No.31 (26.02.2022) the term “District Agricultural Officer” was used generically. Thus, “the impugned orders of transfer on this aspect are devoid of merit.”

The Court allowed the writ petitions relating to Kurnool and Krishna, directing fresh counselling “in terms of G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 15.05.2025 and G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 12.06.2025” and dismissed petitions from other districts where no such large-scale political dictation was proved.

In doing so, Justice Vijay made it clear that while transfers are largely left to the administration, they cannot be reduced to a rubber stamp for political wish-lists. “Such an approach,” he said, “cannot be said to be in public interest, and the restraint imposed on the Court from readily interfering with the transfers of employees cannot come to the aid of the Respondents.”

Date of Decision: 11 August 2025