Scope Of Judicial Review Very Limited In Transfers Made Due To Administrative Exigencies: Andhra Pradesh High Court

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Kiranmayee Mandava, while dismissing a writ petition challenging proceedings of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (Respondent 2), whereby it refused to transfer a Pradhana Archaka at Sri Govindarajaswamy Temple at Tirupati to Srivari Temple at Tirumala, further held,

“The petitioner cannot claim any vested right to seek posting at a particular place. It is for the employer, having regard to the administrative contingencies, to decide on transfers, and such a decision, in the absence of any arbitrary and malafide attributions being made or established, cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

Background

Initially, vide a resolution dated 16.05.2018, Respondent 2 had taken a decision to retire those members of the religious staff working in Tirumala and the Sri Govindarajaswamy Temple at Tirupati who had attained the age of 65 years and fill the resultant vacancy with eligible persons from amongst the eligible erstwhile abolished Mirasi dars. Accordingly, one A.P. Srinivasamurthy Deekshitulu of the Peddintivari family, who was appointed vide proceedings dated 09.06.1998 as a Pradhana Archaka of Govindarajaswamy Temple, was permitted to retire and the resultant vacancy was filled by the petitioner.

The petitioner's family was supposed to render services between three temples, Srivari Temple, Sri Varaha Varadaraja Swamy Vari Temple and Sri Govindarajaswamy Temple. He was rendering services as Archaka at Tirumala before the transfer and was now posted as Pradhana Archaka at Sri Govindarajaswamy Temple at Tirupati. After three months of rendering his services at Sri Govindarajaswamy Temple, he made representations to Respondent 2 requesting to be posted as Pradhana Archaka at Srivari Temple, Tirumala. He stated that the Peddinti family had not got its turn for five years by the date of his representation. However, Respondent 2, vide proceedings dated 10.12.2022, rejected the request of the petitioner quoting administrative reasons. Aggrieved by the said proceedings undertaken by Respondent 2, the petitioner filed the writ petition.

It was stated in the counter filed by Respondent 2 that the transfer was effected to meet administrative exigencies and the petitioner had no vested right to seek posting at a particular place of his choice. Additionally, it was argued that the emoluments received by the Pradhana Archakas at both temples were the same, and the petitioner would not be deprived of any emoluments if he renders his services at Sri Govindarajaswamy Temple, Tirupati. Lastly, it was stated that the Archakas were posted at respective temples depending upon the experience of the persons concerned and according to the requirements of the temples.

The Court held that the petitioners did not place on record any vindictive or arbitrary attitude or malafide act of the respondents effecting the transfer of the petitioner. While the petitioner was at the liberty to make representations to the employer tabling his grievances from working at the transferred place, the Court noted that the petitioner did not mention any difficulties arising from working at the Sri Govindarajaswamy Temple.

Highlighting the very limited scope of judicial review which the Court enjoys in cases of transfers made on account of administrative exigencies, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 42273/2022

Case Name: A P Srinivasa Deekshitulu v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Date: 01.04.2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order