Kocharlakota Sandya vs. The State Of Ap

Facts

The petitioner, Kocharlakota Sandya, a Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST), filed a writ petition challenging the exclusion of old aged helpless parents, whom a government employee has to support, from the categories of preference in G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024 concerning transfers. She also challenged the action of respondents 2 and 3 for not considering her for transfer to Vijayawada City, despite her representation dated 21.08.2024. The petitioner sought a direction to consider her case for transfer based on the dependency of her old aged parents suffering from chronic diseases and her dependent children. The respondents are the State of Andhra Pradesh and its departments dealing with finance and commercial taxes.

Held

The Court noted the submission of proceedings dated 31.12.2024 issued by the Chief Commissioner of the State Tax, Andhra Pradesh. In view of these proceedings, the cause in the writ petition no longer survived. The proceedings indicated that the suspension of the Petitioner was revoked, and she was posted as Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST) in the O/o Additional Commissioner (ST), Regional GST Audit and Enforcement Unit, Vijayawada. Consequently, the Court placed on record the said proceedings and closed the writ petition. No order as to costs was made. As a sequel, any pending miscellaneous petitions were dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the exclusion of old aged helpless parents, whom a government employee has to support, from the categories of preference in Para IV of G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024 is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the action of respondents 2 and 3 in not considering the petitioner's case for transfer to Vijayawada City, despite her representation dated 21.08.2024, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned G.O.Ms.No.75 and G.O.Ms.No.170 (Revenue Department) are illegal and arbitrary for excluding the dependency of old aged helpless parents from transfer preferences. She argued that this exclusion violates her fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. She also argued that the respondents' failure to consider her transfer request to Vijayawada City, despite her representation and the grounds of dependency, is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 21. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment records that the learned Government Pleader submitted proceedings in CCST’s Ref.No.REV03-19022/(35)/5/2023-VIG-CCT dated 31.12.2024.