Transfers Must Reflect Employee Preferences Post-District Bifurcation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Arbitrary Panchayat Secretary Transfers

“When the State Frames a Policy, It Is Bound to Follow It – Ignoring Online Preferences Violates Principles of Fair Administration” - In a significant judgment reinforcing fair administrative practices in government transfers, the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the Writ Appeal , filed by Shaik Abdul Sattar and Battu Surendra, both Panchayat Secretaries, who had challenged their post-district bifurcation transfer orders. The Division Bench of Justice Battu Devanand and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma set aside the Single Judge’s dismissal of their writ petition and directed the District Collector of erstwhile Y.S.R. Kadapa to reconsider and accommodate their transfer preferences within Kadapa District, strictly in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 12.06.2025.

The case addresses the tension between administrative restructuring following the bifurcation of Y.S.R. Kadapa District into Kadapa and Annamayya and the State’s obligation to honour the transfer preferences submitted by employees through an online counselling system. The Court found that transfer orders ignoring those preferences defeated the very objective of the government's policy.

“Government Failed to Explain Why Petitioners’ Transfer Preferences Were Ignored – G.O.Ms.No.5 Must Be Meaningfully Enforced,” Holds High Court

The Bench observed that the State Government’s own policy, as reflected in Clause (v) of G.O.Ms.No.5, clearly delegated the authority to effect transfers to the Collectors of the erstwhile districts, precisely to accommodate employees into their native or preferred districts post-reorganization. However, the District Collector failed to consider the petitioners’ online counselling preferences, and no explanation was offered for this non-compliance, either before the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench.

Rejecting the respondents’ generic defence, the Court held:

“We are not satisfied with the stand taken by the respondents... the counselling and transfers of the writ petitioners have taken place contrary to the aim and object of G.O.Ms.No.5...”

The Bench further emphasised that bifurcation of districts cannot become a ground for administrative disregard of established transfer mechanisms:

“Though separate district administration is under the control of different District Collectors, the erstwhile Collector alone is authorized to effect transfers across the whole original jurisdiction to ensure fair and coordinated placement.”

“Purpose of Counselling Is Not Cosmetic – Preferences Must Be Respected Where Feasible,” Says Division Bench

Both petitioners had opted for three preferred locations within Y.S.R. Kadapa District. However, they were transferred to Annamayya District, allegedly without consideration of their stated preferences. The Court stressed that online counselling preferences cannot be ignored without cogent justification, and the administration’s failure to place any such justification on record amounted to arbitrariness.

Referring to the policy intent behind G.O.Ms.No.5, the Court noted:

“There is no necessity to entrust that counselling and transfers work to the erstwhile District Collector unless the intent was to accommodate employees in their preferred regions across the pre-bifurcation jurisdiction.”

Further, the respondents’ invocation of Clause 5(ii) of G.O.Ms.No.23, dated 15.05.2025, which localized cadres under the Presidential Order, was held irrelevant, since it did not override the express mandate of G.O.Ms.No.5 assigning authority to the erstwhile Collector.

High Court Directs Reconsideration of Transfers Within 3 Weeks

Taking a balanced approach, the Court acknowledged that some reshuffling may already have occurred and that other employees may now occupy the preferred postings. Nonetheless, the Bench insisted that a fresh and fair review of the petitioners’ transfer preferences was warranted:

“It is appropriate and desirable to direct the District Collector to consider the options made by the writ petitioners at the time of online counselling and accommodate them in the Y.S.R Kadapa District to meet the interest of justice.”

Accordingly, the Court set aside the Single Judge’s order dated 23.07.2025, and issued the following operative directions:

“The District Collector, erstwhile Y.S.R. Kadapa District shall examine the options submitted by the petitioners during online counselling and accommodate them within the jurisdiction of Y.S.R. Kadapa District. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

Conclusion: High Court Reaffirms That Administrative Transfers Must Comply with Procedural Fairness and Government Policy

The judgment underscores that government employees cannot be arbitrarily posted in disregard of counselling-based transfer mechanisms, especially when such mechanisms are the product of official policy issued via G.O.s. It affirms that state authorities are bound by their own policy instruments, and cannot rely on vague references or alternative G.Os. to justify deviation.

The ruling is likely to impact future transfer challenges in Andhra Pradesh arising from district bifurcation, especially in sectors governed by Grama Sachivalayams and Ward Sachivalayams.

Date of Decision: 16 October 2025