THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.23560, 23563, 23929, 24659, 25874 AND 27135 OF 2001 Dated:24.08.2011 Between: The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Education (Ser.VI) Department, Secretary Buildings, Hyderabad and others .. Petitioners And J.Sowjatha and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.23560, 23563, 23929, 24659, 25874 AND 27135 OF 2001 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) These writ petitions are filed by the District Educational Officer, Commissioner & Director of School Education and the Government of And Pradesh being aggrieved by orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administra Tribunal. The contesting respondents, at the relevant point of time, w Teachers/Language Pandits. Teachers’ tenure policy is governed by the Ru promulgated by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.118 dated 20.09.2000 modified by the orders in G.O.Ms.No.128, dated 06.10.2001 (hereafter, Transfer Rules). For the year 2001, the Commissioner of School Educa announced guidelines for transfer counselling, scheduled from 06.10.200 30.10.2001. By the said proceedings, District Educational Officers w directed not to allow those teachers who have not completed three years of s in the place of working to participate in the transfer counselling. All contesting respondents assailed the proceedings of the Commissioner, i alia, on the ground that they are ultra vires and discriminatory. Lear Tribunal disposed of the Original Application along with other Orig Applications observing that all those Original Applications were squa covered by the judgment dated 09.10.2001 in O.A.No.7052 of 2001 and batc By the order dated 09.10.2001 in O.A.No.7052 of 2001 and batch, learned Tribunal declined to go into the legality of the transfer policy, but hav come to the conclusion that preventing respondents from participating transfer counselling would go contrary to the Transfer Rules, disposed original applications directing to consider those teachers, who submi applications on or before 05.10.2001 to participate in the transfer counselling This Court has disposed of the writ petitions, being W.P.No.22996 2001 and batch on 17.08.2011, wherein the common order, dated 09.10.20 in O.A.No.7052 of 2001 and batch was challenged. It was observed therein follows. 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. Following the same, these writ petitions are also disposed of in term the order in W.P.No.22996 of 2001 and batch, dated 17.08.2011. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ___________________ (K.G.SHANKAR, J) 24.08.2011 KH [1] 2002 (4) ALD 389 (FB) : 2002 (4) ALT 9