THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.22996, 23514, 23564, 23586, 23643, 23670, 233675, 23753, 23919, 25495, 25509, 25791, 25793, 25795, 25798, 25799, 25927, 25928, 25929, 25932, 26661, 26663, 26703, 26886, 26893, 26961, 26964 AND 27115 OF 2001 17.08.2011 Between: The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, And others. …. Petitioners AND K.Srinivasachary And others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.22996, 23514, 23564, 23586, 23643, 23670, 233675, 23753, 23919, 25495, 25509, 25791, 25793, 25795, 25798, 25799, 25927, 25928, 25929, 25932, 26661, 26663, 26703, 26886, 26893, 26961, 26964 AND 27115 OF 2001 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) These writ petitions are filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in Education Department, the Commissioner of Education and the concerned District Educational Officers being aggrieved by the common order, dated 09.10.2001 in O.A.No.7052 of 2001 and batch, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which was subsequently followed in other original applications. The contesting respondents at the relevant point of time were school assistants/secondary grade teachers/language pandits. Teachers’ tenure policy is governed by the Rules promulgated by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.118 dated 20.09.2000 as modified by the orders in G.O.Ms.No.128, dated 06.10.2001 (hereafter, the Transfer Rules). For the year 2001, the Commissioner of School Education announced guidelines for transfer counseling, scheduled from 06.10.2001 to 30.10.2001. By the said proceedings, District Educational Officers were directed not to allow those teachers who have not completed three years of stay in the place of working to participate in the transfer counselling. All the contesting respondents assailed the proceedings of the Commissioner inter alia on the ground that they are ultra vires and discriminatory. By impugned orders, the Tribunal declined to go into the legality of the transfer policy, but having come to the conclusion that preventing respondents from participating in transfer counselling would go contrary to the Transfer Rules, disposed of original applications directing to consider those teachers, who submitted applications on or before 05.10.2001 to participate in the transfer counselling. Sri Siva, learned Government Pleader (in the office of the Additional Advocate General) submits that without there being any challenge to policy of not transferring a teacher for minimum period of three years, the Tribunal was in error in directing to consider all those respondents who made applications before 05.10.2001. We find considerable force in the submission. There is no gainsaying that judicial review is not regarding the merits of the decision. It is basically about the decision making process. The policy evolved by the Government and the Commissioner for allowing teachers in transfer counselling, and restricting such participation to only those teachers who have completed minimum service of three years at the place of working; does not in any manner lead to any discriminatory consequences. As held by the Full Bench of this Court in Koganti Jayakrishna v State of Andhra Pradesh[1], the Court does not lightly interfere with the policy decision taken by the State in discharge of the executive function. But, if such executive decision is transformed into law, the same must stand the test of being in tune with fundamental rights. Unless and until a policy decision is grossly arbitrary, the same cannot be interfered with. Of course, there might be instances where the Government itself can relax the policy as in the case of Rule 6(v) of the Transfer Rules, which treated physically handicapped, unmarried ladies and widows on a different footing, which is reasonable. We have perused the order of the learned Tribunal. The policy of the Government was not tested on any grounds. The directions, therefore, are not sound. We, however, hasten to add that pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal impugned in these writ petitions, all the respondents are allowed to participate in the transfer counselling and thereafter, there was another counselling as well. In that view of the matter, except making observation as above, we are not inclined to interfere at this stage. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ___________________ (K.G.SHANKAR, J) 17.08.2011 Pln [1] 2002 (4) ALD 389 (FB) : 2002 (4) ALT 9