IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION Nos: 18042, 18043, 18044, 18047, 18048 and 18049 of 2009 BETWEEN: M. Manjula Madhuveena, W/o. K. Lobokumar, SGT MPP School, Punadipadu, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District and others. ... PETITIONERS AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. M.V. RAJA RAAM Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) These writ petitions challenge the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dated 15.06.2009 dismissing the OAs. Since all the cases in the batch are similar we shall refer to the facts in O.A.No.6136 of 2008, which is the subject matter of WP.No.18042 of 2009. WP.No.18042 of 2009: 2. The applicant in O.A.No.6136 of 2008, the petitioner herein, is a Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT), working in Mandal Praja Parishad School, Punadipadu, Kankipadu Village, Krishna District. The OAs were filed challenging G.O.Rt.No.950 Municipal Administration & Urban Development (G2) Department dated 03.07.2008 whereunder revised guidelines were issued by the Government dealing with transfer of teachers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though originally G.O.Rt.No.950 dated 03.07.2008 aforesaid was questioned in OA, by a subsequent application seeking amendment, G.O.Rt.No.903 Municipal Administration & Urban Development (G2) Department dated 20.06.2008 was also challenged and the tribunal has upheld both the GOs under the impugned order. 4. The petitioner herein was appointed in Mandal Praja Parishad School (MPPS) and the petitioners/applicants in other OAs were appointed in the schools under the management of Municipalities, Nagar Panchayats, Municipal Corporations etc. and they are governed by their respective service rules. The Government had issued the transfer policy under G.O.Rt.No.932 Municipal Administration & Urban Development (G2) Department dated 19.08.2006 based on the recommendations of a committee constituted to frame transfer policy with guidelines for transfer of teachers working in Mandal Praja Parishad (MPP) Schools, Zilla Praja Parishad (ZPP) schools and Government schools to Nagar Panchayats/Municipalities/Municipal Corporations and vice-versa in the State. Various guidelines were formulated in the G.O.Rt.No.932 dated 19.08.2006 including preferential categories in order of preference for transfers of teachers for which period of minimum service required was held to be three years. These preferential categories covered physically challenged, widows, medical grounds – where dependants are suffering from serious ailments and spouse cases – where one of the spouses is employed in State Government/Central Government/Universities/Local Bodies/Public Sector Undertakings and Government Aided Institutions. 5. The petitioners contend that they had applied for transfer duly fulfilling the terms and conditions of G.O.Rt.No.932 dated 19.08.2006 referred to above and that their absorption in municipal corporations was also approved by the respective municipal corporations. 6. For instance, in this writ petition the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a resolution passed by the Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada where 50 teachers working in ZPP schools made application seeking their transfer to the corporation and the same was recommended to the Government. The learned counsel also brought to our notice a letter of the Director of School Education, Hyderabad addressed to the Principal Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department bearing Lr.Rc.No.2020/D1-2/2007 dated - 06.2007 whereunder the Director of School Education recommended the transfer of the teachers to the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation keeping in view the resolution and consent of the municipal corporation. Learned counsel submits that while these proceedings are pending with the Government for final decision, the petitioners were legitimately expecting that their cases for transfers would favourably be considered especially when their cases were recommended and municipal corporation has already recorded its consent. However, the learned counsel submits that the Government revised the guidelines by issuing further G.O.Rt.No.903 dated 20.06.2008 and lastly by further G.O.Rt.No.950 dated 03.07.2008. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the petitioners were constrained to challenge the said revised guidelines under the aforesaid GOs before the tribunal. 7. Under the impugned order, the tribunal has rejected the OAS by holding that the Government has necessary jurisdiction to issue and revise the guidelines relating to transfer of teachers and there is no infirmity in G.O.Rt.Nos.903 and 950 referred to above. The tribunal also found that no legal right of the petitioner is affected and the ground of legitimate expectancy urged by the petitioners cannot be upheld. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 9. Mr. M.V. Raja Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the resolution passed by the municipal corporation and the recommendations by the Director of School Education to the Government were in the process of consideration of the Government. At that stage, when the impugned G.O.Rt.Nos.903 and 950 were issued and nothing is stated with regard to the consideration of the application as per G.O.Rt.No.932 dated 19.08.2006 earlier issued. Learned counsel submits that in the later GO there is no provision with regard to the consideration pending with the Government under the earlier G.O.Rt.No.932 dated 19.08.2006. He, therefore, submits that the fulfillment of criteria by the petitioner under G.O.Rt.No.932 has not been examined by the Government and merely on account of the subsequent GOs being issued; their cases are not being considered. 10. Learned Government Pleader, however, submits that a detailed counter was filed by the Assistant Secretary to the Government when the matters were being considered by the tribunal. He submits that ban on transfers was lifted by the Government. The proposals received during May 2007 were considered and eligible teachers were transferred. However, where the information was not complete such proposals were not considered due to reimposition of ban on transfers. Subsequently, the State reviewed the guidelines during the Secretary Level Meeting held on 09.05.2008 covering various departments and in order to maintain transparency and to protect the interest of teachers in both the departments, in the process of allowing inter-departmental absorption by transfers was regulated by revised guidelines under G.O.Rt.No.903 dated 20.06.2008. Further, it was noticed by the Government that in order to protect the promotional avenues for Municipal Teachers and limit the adverse impact on the functioning of schools in other managements preferential categories allowed under G.O.Rt.No.932 dated 19.08.2006 were revised and restricted to spouse cases. He, further, submits that both G.O.Rt.Nos.903 as well as 950 are within the executive power of the State and the said GOs being merely uniform guidelines relating to transfer, the legal rights of the applicants as such are not affected. He relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in STATE OF U.P. v. U.P. RAJYA KHANIJ VIKAS NIGAM SANGHARSH SAMITI[1] and particularly paras 42 to 45 thereof for the proposition that since the statutory rules do not provide for absorption of employees the absorption could not have been considered and there can be no estoppel against the statute. He also relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court in RAM PRAVESH SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR[2] and particularly para 30 thereof. 11. We have considered the contentions on either side. A reading of the aforesaid three GOs would show that the Government merely wanted to lay down guidelines with regard to transfer of teachers and for that purpose initial guidelines under G.O.Rt.No.932 dated 19.08.2006 were issued. Further, the said guidelines were reviewed and the Government decided to simplify the procedure for absorption of teachers to make it more transparent and therefore, issued revised comprehensive guidelines under G.O.Rt.No.903 dated 20.06.2008. Further, under the last GO i.e. G.O.Rt.No.950 dated 03.07.2008, the Government had further revised the guidelines by indicating the procedure for absorption by transfer of teachers of Government schools, ZPP schools and MPP schools to Nagar Panchayats/Municipalities/Municipal Corporations and vice-versa and the absorption by transfer of teachers from one Municipality to another Municipality, from one Municipal Corporation to another Municipal Corporation and from Municipality to Corporation and Corporation to Municipality. Under all the three revised guidelines, the last of the revised guidelines under G.O.Rt.No.950 dated 03.07.2008 was issued in supercession of G.O.Rt.Nos.932 and 903 referred to above and as such, the only operating guidelines were under G.O.Rt.No.950 dated 03.07.2008. The tribunal had already found that the three impugned GOs were within the executive power of the State and that position is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this batch of cases. The contentions are, therefore, really based upon the legitimate expectancy that the cases of the petitioners which fulfill the earliest G.O.Rt.No.932 dated 19.08.2006 and which were duly recommended and pending with the Government, were not considered after the impugned GOs were issued. It is not in controversy that under the impugned GOs the criteria for considering the cases for transfer has undergone changes. 12. The question, therefore, that really falls for consideration is whether there is any legal right existing in favour of the petitioners so as to challenge the revised guidelines under the impugned GOs. 13. The tribunal had already answered the said question that no legal right of the petitioners is infringed. We are of the view that the present case is not merely a case relating to criteria or guidelines for transfer but the present case also deals with absorption by transfer of teachers from one management to another management and vice-versa. The Government, therefore, was justified in considering and reconsidering the issues from the standpoint of protecting the interests of the existing teachers working under different managements. The criteria originally evolved under the earliest G.O.Rt.No.932 dated 19.08.2006 was revised after review of the entire situation and thereafter the revised guidelines under G.O.Rt.No.903 dated 20.06.2008 were issued. On a further review, the criteria underwent further revision and G.O.Rt.No.950 dated 03.07.2008 was issued. It cannot be disputed that the criteria relating to absorption by transfer was in the nature of a policy of the State. In its own wisdom the State has every right to change or revise its policy to meet various situations arising during the review of an earlier policy. The said power of the State with regard to formulating uniform policy or revising the same cannot be said to infringe any legal right of the petitioners. Even in the absence of any policy no existing legal right was brought to our notice by the petitioners with regard to absorption by transfer from one management to another. The absence of any existing legal right in the petitioners consequently leads to inference that hardly any infringement of legal rights arises as sought to be made out by the petitioners. 14. In the decision of U.P. RAJYA KHANIJ VIKAS NIGAM SANGHARSH SAMITI’s case (1 supra) the Supreme Court held at para 45 as under: “45. Again, in our considered opinion, it was incumbent on the employees to show the right of absorption of retrenched employees in government departments or other public sector undertakings. The petitioners had prayed for a writ of mandamus which presupposes a legal right in favour of the applicant. Such right must be a subsisting right and enforceable in a court of law. There must be corresponding legal duty on the part of the respondent Corporation or the Government which required the Corporation or the Government “to do that which a statute required it to do”. No such right of absorption has been shown by the petitioners. Nor could any such corresponding duty of the respondents be shown to the High Court by the employees…” 15. In the circumstances, therefore, the petitioners have failed to establish any legal right in their favour whereby they could enforce a consideration of their case in G.O.Rt.No.932 dated 19.08.2006 earlier issued, notwithstanding the revised guidelines under the subsequent G.O.Rt.Nos.903 and 950 dated 20.06.2008 and 03.07.2008 respectively. Further, in view of the revised guidelines under the later two GOs, the earlier G.O.Rt.No.932 dated 19.08.2006 does not subsist and even if the consideration of the petitioners is pending, in view of the supercession of the said G.O.Rt.No.932 by the later GOs no mandamus could have been asked by the petitioners for directing consideration of their cases under G.O.Rt.No.932 dated 19.08.2006. The tribunal, therefore, was justified in rejecting the case of the petitioners. 16. The ground of legitimate expectancy as raised by the petitioners is also equally unsustainable as the legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred only if it is founded on the sanction of law or custom or an established procedure followed in regular and natural sequence. The said expectancy should be justifiably legitimate and protectable and every such legitimate expectation does not by itself fructify into a right and therefore, it does not amount to a right in the conventional sense [see (Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation) (1993) 3 SCC 499]. Thus, legitimate expectation being not founded by any legal right, even on that ground the petitioners contention that their case remained unconsidered even though they have fulfilled all requirements under G.O.Rt.No.932 dated 19.08.2006 cannot be accepted. In the result, therefore, the writ petitions are devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 18, 2009 DSK [1] (2008) 12 SCC 675 [2] (2006) 8 SCC 381