THE GOVERNMENT OF A.P. versus G. VENKATA RATNAM

Citation: [2008] 11 S.C.R. 61 · Decided: 21-07-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE, AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Case Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 11 S.C.R 61 
THE GOVERNMENT OF A P. 
v. 
G. VENKATA RATNAM 
(Civil Appeal No. 4582 of 2008) 
JULY 21. 2008 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ] 
' . 
. 
. 
Service Law: 
A 
B 
Transfer- Order set aside by High Court- HELD: Order 
of.transfer neither suffers from violation of any statutory rules C 
nor can it be described as mala fide - High Court's finding 
regarding lack of bona fide on the part of State Government is 
completely unfounded and untenable - Legal position regard-
ing interference by courts in matters of transfer is well estab-
lished-:- Order of High Court set aside. , 
o 
.• ·Judicial restraint: 
High Court - While setting aside an employee's transfer 
order commenting about Government Officers - HELD: Highly 
caustic comments about Government Officers made in the E 
judgment by High Court appear to be completely uncalled for 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISD.ICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4582 
of ?008. 
From the final Judgment dated 23.2.2007 of the High Court 
F 
o.f ~udicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. No. 2886/ 
2006 
.· · · · ·A: Fatima (for Mrs. D. Bharthi Reddy) for the Appellant. 
~.,, . 
.. - . 9. Ramakrishna Prasad, Suyodhan Byraparieni and G 
Siddharth Patnaik for the Respondent. 
·The following Order of the Court was delivered 
, Leave granted. 
61 
H 
A· 
62 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 
Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
The respondent is a Technic.al Assistant in the Department 
of Archaeology and Museums, Government of Andhra Pradesh. 
He was posted in the Office of Director, Archaeology and Mu-
B seums, Hyderabad, where he was able to stay, since his ap-
pointment in the year 1985,. uninterrupte?gly for a period of 20 
years. He was transferred from Hyderabad' a-nd posted in the 
Office of the Assistant Director (Technical), Archaeology and 
Mu~eums, Kakinada by an order issued by the Director on 29 
Jun.e, 2005. He challenged his transfer orper before theAndhra 
C Pradesh Administrative Trib.unal in 0. A. No. 3050 of 2005. ;At 
that time his appeal filed· before· the· departmental ·authorities 
was pending. Hence, the Tribunal disposed of the app.lication 
by order dated 4 July, 2005 with a direction fo the concerned 
departmental authority to dispose of. the appeal Within four 
D weeks. The departmental appeal was finally dismissed by or-
der dated 3 August, 2005. The respondent once again ap-
proached the Tribunal in 0. A. No. 4048 of 2005 but the Tribu-
natdediriecfto interfe!e in the matter and dismissed the O.A. 
by order dated 27 Decem_ber, 200~. 
F 
,, The respondent took the challenge to his transfer order to 
the And hr.a Pradesh tligh Court in Writ Petition No.2886 of 2006. 
The High Cou·rt allowed the writ petition and set aside the order 
of the respondent's transfer by judgment and order dated 23 
F 
February, 2007: The State has come in appeal again.st the judg-
ment :and order passed by the High.Court. 
- . 
The High Court judgment is wholly untenable and, we re-
gret to.say, it is rather.unusual andstrange. Thejudgment was 
apparently delivered jn anger. The anger might have been 
G caused bithe Governrnent Pleader or the Director (the second 
respondent before the High c·ourt) but as a result the Court not 
only lost the judicial poise and restraint but also arrived at com-
pletely unfounded conclusions. The judgment quotes a passage 
from William Dalrymple's book, 'The Last Mughal' ·about how 
H the Red Fort at Delhi was vandalized by the British and hew the 
THE GOVERNMENT OF A. P. v. G. VENKATA 
63 
RATNAM 
~ 
A 
damages of the colonial times are perpetuated by the Archaeo-
logical Survey Of India. One fails to see how the Red Fort, the 
maintenance of which the Government of Andhra Pradesh is 
not even remotely connected with, comes into all this. The ref-
erence to the plight of the Red Fort is followed by the observa-
tion that the ancient monuments and archaeological sites in 
B 
.. 
Andhra Pradesh too are in no better state. In this way the Court 
declares that the agencies and the people entrusted with the 
responsibility to preserve and maintain the country's historical 
heritage are quite incapable and inefficient in the discharge of 
the responsibility. But once again we fail to see the relevance c 
of all this to the simple issue before the Court. Unfortunately this 
is not the only incongruity. The judgment makes, at more than 
one place, highly caustic comments about Government Offic-
ers, especially the members of the Central Civ
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.