ORDER 1. Aggrieved by his transfer from Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential School/Junior College, C. Belgal, Kurnool District, to the Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential School/Junior College, Sagileru, Kadapa District, the petitioner, a Junior Lecturer in the service of the Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society (for brevity, 'the Society'), is before this Court. 2. The petitioner entered the service of the Society as a teacher in the year 1994. He was promoted as a Junior Lecturer in Zoology in the year 1999. He worked at Ramapuram from 1994 to 2002. From 27.06.2002 he worked as a Junior Lecturer at Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential School/Junior College (APSWRS/JC), Jupadu, Kurnool District. 3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Rt.No.455, Social Welfare (R.S.I) Department, dated 04.06.2011, stipulating the guidelines for regulating the transfer of staff in the Society for the academic year 2011-2012. All teachers who completed five years of service in a particular school as on 15.05.2011 were compulsorily to be transferred as per clause 3.2.(a) of the said guidelines. The petitioner, who had completed over eight years at APSWRS/JC, Jupadu, by the said date, was accordingly called for the transfer counselling which was conducted on 09.06.2011. As per clause 14 of the guidelines, the employee has to indicate in the transfer application, three places in order of preference that he opted for. The petitioner opted for C. Belgal and Chinnatekuru in Kurnool District. He procured 58 entitlement points, as per the guidelines, and stood first in the transfer merit list. The Secretary of the Society thereupon issued orders dated 09.06.2011 transferring him from APSWRS/JC, Jupadu to APSWRS/JC, C. Belgal, Kurnool District, as per his choice. The petitioner was admitted to duty at APSWRS/JC, C. Belgal, on 18.06.2011. 4. While matters stood thus, the third respondent herein, a Junior Lecturer in Zoology at APSWRS/JC, Chinnatekuru, Kurnool District, who had also participated in the transfer counselling and obtained 42 marks, standing second in the transfer merit list, submitted representation dated 11.07.2011 to the Chairman of the Society. This representation was treated as an appeal and by Memo dated 24.02.2012, the Chairman of the Society allowed the said appeal. This representation was treated as an appeal and by Memo dated 24.02.2012, the Chairman of the Society allowed the said appeal. In so far as the relief was concerned, the Chairman of the Society pointed out that the third respondent's request for transfer to APSWRS/JC, C. Belgal, could not be considered at that time as it was the middle of the academic year but his request would be considered at the end of the academic year. The Principals concerned were directed to take action accordingly. Though the petitioner's name finds mention in the body of this Memo, no notice or opportunity was given to him prior to the passing of the orders contained therein. The present writ petition was filed, in the first instance, challenging this Memo dated 24.02.2012. 5. When this matter came up for admission on 25.04.2012, the learned standing counsel for the Society took notice and sought time to get instructions. The matter was accordingly adjourned to 27.04.2012. While so, the Society issued proceedings dated 23.04.2012 wherein it referred to the fact that the third respondent's appeal had been allowed by the Chairman of the Society and consequent thereto, the Society posted the third respondent at APSWRS/JC, C. Belgal, Kurnool District, in the place of the petitioner who was, in turn, posted at APSWRS/JC, Sagileru, Kadapa District. The petitioner, thereupon, amended his prayer in the writ petition by including a challenge to these later proceeding dated 23.04.2012. 6. The petitioner therefore assails the two proceedings, viz., the Memo dated 24.02.2012 and the consequential proceedings dated 23.04.2012, effecting his transfer from APSWRS/JC, C. Belgal, Kurnool District, to APSWRS/JC, Sagilelru, Kadapa District, on the strength of the so called appeal filed by the third respondent behind his back. 7. This Court, taking note of the above facts, stayed both the impugned proceedings by interim order dated 27.04.2012. 8. Aggrieved, the third respondent filed WVMP No.1955 of 2012 to vacate the said order. In the counter filed in support thereof, the third respondent stated that the petitioner had been awarded marks in excess of his actual entitlement during the transfer counselling and that he himself had obtained the highest marks. 8. Aggrieved, the third respondent filed WVMP No.1955 of 2012 to vacate the said order. In the counter filed in support thereof, the third respondent stated that the petitioner had been awarded marks in excess of his actual entitlement during the transfer counselling and that he himself had obtained the highest marks. As the petitioner was given the first position in the merit transfer list basing on these erroneous marks, the third respondent's contention is that he, having the highest marks, should have been at the said position and that he should have been given the first choice as to the place of transfer. The third respondent therefore sought to justify the action of the Society in allowing his appeal and asserted that the petitioner had no vested right to seek posting at any particular place. He stated that he had joined at APSWRS/JC, C. Belgal, on 25.04.2012 even before the interim orders were passed in this writ petition and sought vacation thereof. 9. The Society, in its counter, stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued G.O.Ms.No.118, Social Welfare (Q) Department, dated 17.11.1983, establishing Social Welfare Residential Schools in the State for providing quality education to talented Scheduled Caste children in rural areas. The Society was constituted thereafter under G.O.Ms.No.245, Social Welfare (Q) Department, dated 03.10.1986, for the purpose of supervising, controlling and managing the Social Welfare Educational Institutions in the State. The Society was registered under the Andhra Pradesh Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli. The management of the Society is vested in a Board of Governors of which, the Chairman is the Minister for Social Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh, while the Principal Secretary to the Government, Social Welfare Department, is the Vice Chairman. The other members are also Government functionaries. The Society is an autonomous body, fully funded by the Government and functioning as per its Memorandum of Association and Bye-Laws. It is however conceded that the Society is an instrumentality of the State, within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. 10. In so far as the present case is concerned, the Society stated that the petitioner was subjected to transfer counselling on 09.06.2011 as he had completed nine years of service at Jupadu in Kurnool District. He was therefore included in the compulsory transfer category. 10. In so far as the present case is concerned, the Society stated that the petitioner was subjected to transfer counselling on 09.06.2011 as he had completed nine years of service at Jupadu in Kurnool District. He was therefore included in the compulsory transfer category. The third respondent also fell within the same category as he had completed six years of service at APSWRS/ JC, Chinnatekuru, Kurnool District. The Society conceded that the petitioner was placed at the first position in the transfer merit list. Referring to the so called appeal filed by the third respondent, wherein he had contended that the petitioner's marks were calculated erroneously, the Society stated that this contention was examined carefully and it was found that the petitioner had been granted marks in excess of his entitlement. The counter goes on to elaborate as to how the marks awarded to him were excessive. The Society further stated that the petitioner, since his initial appointment as a teacher during the year 1994, worked only at two institutions in his entire 17 years of service and never worked in any remote place. However, the third respondent is said to have worked in remote places like Ardhaveedu, Velugonda and Gandi. This statement, however, runs contra to what is stated in the impugned Memo dated 24.02.2012. 11. It is on the basis of this exercise that the Society now seeks to justify its action in allowing the third respondent's appeal and directing the transfer of the petitioner from APSWRS/JC, C. Belgal, Kurnool District to APSWRS/JC, Sagileru, Kadapa District. 12. The case was listed before this Court for hearing the interlocutory petitions but arguments were advanced by the learned counsel encompassing the whole controversy. The matter is therefore proposed to be disposed of finally by this order. 13. Though much has been stated in the counter about the consideration of the third respondent's appeal, the order passed by the appellate authority, contained in the Memo dated 24.02.2012, must independently speak for itself. The Memo is cryptic and terse, to put it mildly, and reads as under: "MEMO Rc.No.Z-IV/9611/2011 Dated: 24-02-2012 Sub: APSWREIS - Zone-IV - Estt. Sri D. Venkata Swamy, JL Zoology - Appeal filed - Appeal allowed Postings to APSWRS/JC, C. Belgal, Kurnool District, will be considered at the end of the academic year 2011-12 - Reg. Ref: (1) G.O. Rt. No. 455, SW [RS.I] Dept., dt.04.06.2011. Sri D. Venkata Swamy, JL Zoology - Appeal filed - Appeal allowed Postings to APSWRS/JC, C. Belgal, Kurnool District, will be considered at the end of the academic year 2011-12 - Reg. Ref: (1) G.O. Rt. No. 455, SW [RS.I] Dept., dt.04.06.2011. (2) This office Proc. Rc. No. Z-IV/9611/2011-3, dated 09.06.2011. (3) Appeal of Sri D.Venkata Swamy, JL Zoology, Dated 11.07.2011. In the reference 2nd cited above, Sri D. Venata Swamy, JL, Zoology has attended the transfer counselling on 09.06.2011 as he completed 6 years of service at Chinnatekuru JC, Kurnool District and posted to APSWRS/JC, B. Mattam, YSR Kadapa District comes under compulsory transfer category and he never worked in remote schools in his service. The individual has requested for transfer to APSWRS/JC, Jupadu or C. Belgal of Kurnool District. The Secretary, APSWREI Society, Hyderabad, has not considered the request of Sri D. Venkata Swamy, JL Zoology as he completed 6 years of service at Chinnatekuru JC and he never worked in remote schools in his service. Hence he was posted to APSWRS/JC, B. Mattam, YSR District. Sri D. Venkata Swamy, JL Zoology, has filed an appeal petition and requested for transfer to APSWRS/JC, Jupadu or C. Belgal of Kurnool District as he worked in remote places and he got higher marks than Sri M. Vijayudu and also submitted that his spouse is working as SGT in MPUP School, Kallur MandaI. His appeal is allowed and examined in detail and his request cannot be considered at present, as this is the middle of the academic year. His request will be considered in the end of the academic year. The Principals concerned are hereby directed to take action accordingly. (THIS HAS THE APPROVAL OF THE CHAIRMAN) Sd/- T.CHIRANJEEVULU for CHAIRMAN Sd/- for SECRETARY Sri D.Venkata Swamy, JL Zoology, APSWRS/JC, B. Mattam, YSR Kadapa District, through the Principal concerned. Copy to the Principal, APSWRS/JC, B. Mattam, YSR Kadapa District. Copy to the Principal, APSWRS/JC, Chinnatekuru, Kurnool District. Copy to the Zonal Officer, Zone-IV, Kadapa District. Copy to file." 14. Trite to state, the Memo must stand or fall on its own strength and justification therefor cannot be supplemented by the Society through the counter filed before this Court. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1) (1978) 1 SCC 405 , the Supreme Court stated thus: "8. Copy to file." 14. Trite to state, the Memo must stand or fall on its own strength and justification therefor cannot be supplemented by the Society through the counter filed before this Court. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1) (1978) 1 SCC 405 , the Supreme Court stated thus: "8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of an affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji [ AIR 1952 SC 16 ]: "Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting’s and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older. 15. In the light of this legal position, the Memo dated 24.02.2012 falls woefully short of the standard expected of an authority while discharging appellate jurisdiction. 16. Though there is a mention in the Memo of the ground raised by the third respondent that he got higher marks than the petitioner, there is neither any discussion on this aspect nor any finding that there is merit in this contention. Further, the petitioner's name finds mention in the Memo in this context but surprisingly, he was neither put on notice of the filing of the appeal nor given an opportunity of presenting his case. To compound this, a copy of the Memo was not even marked to him. An appellate authority is hardly expected to deal with an appeal in this manner when adjudication thereof clearly had adverse effect on a person who was not even a party before it. To compound this, a copy of the Memo was not even marked to him. An appellate authority is hardly expected to deal with an appeal in this manner when adjudication thereof clearly had adverse effect on a person who was not even a party before it. This oppressive conduct of the Society, arrogant in its autonomy and manned by purportedly responsible Government officials, militates against the fairness and transparency expected of an instrumentality of the State. 17. The slipshod approach of the Society in dealing with the matter is further evidenced by the very entertainment of the third respondent's so called appeal. The guidelines in G.O.Rt.No.455 dated 04.06.2011 postulate, under clause 21 thereof, that an appeal against an order of the transfer committee shall lie to the Chairman of the Society within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of such order. In the present case, the petitioner's posting order is dated 09.06.2011, whereby he was transferred to APSWRS/JC, C. Belgal, Kurnool District. In pursuance thereof, he joined duty on 18.06.2011. The third respondent's representation, which was treated as an appeal, is dated 11.07.2011, i.e., well after the stipulated period of ten days which is the limitation prescribed for preferring an appeal. Despite the same, the representation was magnanimously treated as an appeal by the Chairman of the Society and though no power to condone the delay is extant in the guidelines, the Chairman of the Society went about adjudicating the same without even putting the affected party on notice. Arbitrariness is writ large on the face of this action. 18. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the Memo dated 24.02.2012 of the Chairman of the Society and the consequential proceedings dated 23.04.2012. The petitioner shall be continued at APSWRS/JC, C. Belgal, Kurnool District, as per his entitlement pursuant to his transfer under the earlier proceedings dated 09.06.2011. WPMP No.16416 of 2012 and WYMP No.1955 of 2012 no longer require consideration in the light of this final order and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.