ORDER : 1. Since the issue involved in all the writ petitions is the same, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of them through this common order. 2. Petitioners, Secondary Grade Teachers, School Assistants, and Grade-II Head Masters in different schools filed these writ petitions assailing the proceedings vide Memo No. 2272734/SER.II/A.2/2023 dated 06.06.2024, keeping in abeyance the transfer orders issued vide Govt. Memo No. 2272734/Ser.II/A.2/2023 dated 21.02.2024; Govt. Memo No. 2313567/Ser.II/A.2/2023 dated 21.02.2024; Govt. Memo No. 2272734/Ser.II/A.2/2023 dated 28.02.2024; Govt. Memo No. 2357693/Ser.II/A.2/2023 dated 11.03.2024; Govt. Memo No. 2357693/Ser.II/A.2/2023 dated 14.03.2024; Govt. Memo No. 2360025/Ser.II/A.2/2023 dated 15.03.2024 and Govt. Memo No. 2385662/Ser.II/A.2/2023 dated 16.03.2024, as illegal and arbitrary. 3......... (a) Shorn of the details, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms. No. 47 School Education (Services-II) Department dated 22.05.2023 making the A.P. Teachers (Regulation of Transfers) Rules. In pursuance of the said G.O., certain teachers (653) applied to the Government to transfer on spouse/medical/mutual grounds in June/July/August 2023. Those requests were considered by the Government and transfer orders were accordingly issued by the respective District Educational Officers (DEOs) in the State on 01.09.2023. All the teachers joined the respective transfer places from June, 2023 to August, 2023. The DEOs requested the 2nd respondent to ratify the transfer orders. The 1st respondent issued Memo No. 1742374/SER.II/A.2/2022, dated 18.04.2024 ratifying the action of the DEOs qua the transfer orders already effected with the concurrence of Finance Department vide UO note dated 10.04.2024. (b) The petitioners, similarly placed employees, on par with other teachers, requested transfers on spouse/medical/mutual grounds. After calling for the report from the concerned DEOs, the Commissioner of School Education forwarded the same to 1st respondent-Principal Secretary, School Education. Upon considering the same, the 1st respondent issued the aforementioned seven memos, affecting transfers with a condition that the individuals should be relieved on 01.05.2024, as the academic year would be ending by 30.04.2024. (c) Be that as it may, the 1st respondent issued Memo No. 2272734/SER.II/A.2/2023 dated 12.04.2024, in partial modification of the order issued in the aforementioned seven memos, indicating that the individuals/employees would be relieved after the end of the Model Code of Conduct instead of 01.05.2024. The model code of conduct came into force on 16.03.2024 and the same was lifted on 06.06.2024. (d) The 1st respondent issued Memo No. 2272734/SER.II/A.2/2023 dated 06.06.2024 keeping in abeyance the transfer orders until further orders. The model code of conduct came into force on 16.03.2024 and the same was lifted on 06.06.2024. (d) The 1st respondent issued Memo No. 2272734/SER.II/A.2/2023 dated 06.06.2024 keeping in abeyance the transfer orders until further orders. Assailing the said proceedings, several writ petitions were filed. At the request made on behalf of the learned Government Pleader, the writ petition were adjourned from time to time, however, no interim orders were passed. (e) As the matter stood thus, the 1st respondent issued Memo No. 2272734/SER.II/A.2/ 2023 dated 18.07.2024 in the said memo it was mentioned that the competent authority rejected the transfer orders, issued in the aforementioned seven memos, since the same were issued in violation of existing guidelines and also without approval of the competent authority. The said memo was placed before this Court on 20.07.2024. Impugning the said memo, W.P. Nos. 16600 and 17061 of 2024 were filed. In the other writ petitions interlocutory applications seeking amendment of prayer, impugning the Memo dated 18.07.2024 issued by the 1st respondent. Those applications were ordered. 4......... (a) A counter affidavit was filed by the 1st respondent. It was contended, inter-alia, that the Government issued guidelines for the transfer of employees in the year 2023 vide G.O.Ms. No. 71 FINANCE (HR.I-PLG. & POLICY) Department dated 17.05.2023 relaxing ban period from 22.05.2023 to 31.05.2023. In the said G.O., it was mentioned that the ban on transfers shall come into force with effect from 01.06.2023. In Clause No. 5 of the G.O., it was stated that the Education Department is exempted from transfer guidelines and the Department may devise its transfer guidelines. Because of the same, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms. No. 47 dated 22.05.2023 making the A.P. Teachers (Regulation of Transfers) Rules. The Commissioner of School Education issued proceedings vide Rc. No. ESE02-14/11/2022-EST4-CSE, dated 22.05.2023 prescribing the schedule of transfers counseling commencing from 24.05.2023 to 11.06.203 and completed the web counseling process. (b) After completion of transfer counseling, the Government received several representations from 653 teachers to consider their candidature for request transfers on spouse/medical/mutual grounds, after the ban on transfers came into force. The DEOs forwarded the requests to the Commissioner of School Education for ratification, who in turn, forwarded the proposal to the 1st respondent. (b) After completion of transfer counseling, the Government received several representations from 653 teachers to consider their candidature for request transfers on spouse/medical/mutual grounds, after the ban on transfers came into force. The DEOs forwarded the requests to the Commissioner of School Education for ratification, who in turn, forwarded the proposal to the 1st respondent. The then Chief Minister, the competent authority, ratified the transfer orders, and the ratification orders were issued vide Memo No. 1742374/SER.II/A.2/2022, dated 18.04.2024 along with Finance Department concurrence and UO note dated 10.04.2024. (c) After accepting the applications of the above teachers, all the petitioners and others nearly 917 made requests seeking transfer on spouse/mutual/medical grounds. The then Minister for Education sought a detailed report. The 1st respondent, in turn, sought a detailed report from the Heads of the Department of School Education. After receiving a detailed report from the Heads of the Department, 1st respondent issued memos, and the file for transfer of 917 teachers was circulated for ratification to the competent authority. Meanwhile, the Model Code of Conduct came into force on 16.03.2024 and was in force till 06.06.2024. (d) After the formation of the Government, memos circulated to the competent authority for ratification were kept in abeyance, on administrative reasons on 06.06.2024 until further orders. Later, the competent authority rejected the memos since they were issued in violation of existing guidelines and without the approval of the competent authority. Accordingly, a memo dated 18.07.2024 was issued. Petitioners ought to have opted for transfer at the time of general transfers. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petitions. 5. Heard Sri C. Raghu, learned senior counsel assisted by Smt. V. Sesha Kumari, Smt. Kavitha Gottipati, Sri Pamarty Ratnakar, Dr. Challa Srinivasa Reddy, and Smt. Aishwarya Nagula, learned counsel for petitioners and Smt. S. Pranathi, learned Special Government Pleader for Services. 6. Learned senior counsel and other counsels would submit that the two memos dated 06.06.2024 and 18.07.2024 do not contain any reasons. The petitioners received transfer orders, after approval/ratification from the competent authority. No further ratification is required. The relieving date 01-5-2014 was mentioned as the academic year would end by 30.04.2024. As per G.O.Ms. No. 1 dated 27.10.2023, appointments were made by the Head of the Department and the Head of the Department is the Principal Secretary. The ban on transfers mentioned in G.O.Ms. No further ratification is required. The relieving date 01-5-2014 was mentioned as the academic year would end by 30.04.2024. As per G.O.Ms. No. 1 dated 27.10.2023, appointments were made by the Head of the Department and the Head of the Department is the Principal Secretary. The ban on transfers mentioned in G.O.Ms. No. 71 dated 17.05.2023, would not apply to the Education Department, because of clause No. 5 of the said G.O. No ban on transfer was mentioned in G.O.Ms. No. 47 dated 22.05.2023 and based on the transfers, the petitioners made arrangements in the respective transferee places. Since the petitioners approached the High Court, a new ground was invented in the form of ratification. Assuming for arguments and without admitting the ban, 653 teachers were transferred and a ratification memo dated 18-4-2024 was issued when the Model Code of Conduct was in force. After the change of the government, as per averments in the counter affidavit, an abeyance order and rejection order without assigning any reasons were issued. 7. While adopting the arguments of learned senior counsel, Sri Pamarty Ratnakar, one of the learned counsel for petitioners, would submit that G.O.Ms. No. 71 dated 17.05.2023 and G.O.Ms. No. 47 dated 22.05.2023 would apply to the case at hand, however, the learned counsel would submit that by aforementioned seven memos, the Government affected request transfers and when once the Government affected request transfers, there is no need for ratification. 8. Learned Special Government Pleader, on the other hand, would submit that all the transfers of the employees in the State should be in consultation with the Finance Department and hence, the Finance Department issued G.O.Ms. No. 71 dated 17.05.2023 relaxing ban from 22.05.2023 to 31.05.2023. Again, the ban on transfers came into force from 01.06.2023. She would also submit that, because of Clause No. 5 in G.O.Ms. No. 71, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms. No. 47 dated 22-5- 2023. She would submit that G.O.Ms. No. 71 dated 17-5-2023 exempted certain departments and permitted those departments to frame rules qua Transfers and thus, G.O.Ms. No. 47 has to be read along with G.O.Ms. No. 71. She would also submit that all the petitioners made applications during the ban period. No. 47 dated 22-5- 2023. She would submit that G.O.Ms. No. 71 dated 17-5-2023 exempted certain departments and permitted those departments to frame rules qua Transfers and thus, G.O.Ms. No. 47 has to be read along with G.O.Ms. No. 71. She would also submit that all the petitioners made applications during the ban period. She would submit that as per Rule 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Government Business Rules, 2018, which were notified as per G.O. (P) No. 4 General Administration (Cabinet-II) Department dated 28.11.2018, the Chief Minister is the competent authority to ratify the transfers. She would submit that unless petitioners are relieved in pursuance of transfer orders, the petitioners cannot claim any right. However, in respect of 653 teachers, they were relieved in the first insance, and later it was ratified by the then Chief Minister. Further submitted that the aforementioned seven memos issued by the 1st respondent suffer from illegalities and considering all those aspects, the competent authority rejected to ratify the transfer orders and hence, issued a memo dated 18.07.2024. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petitions. 9. In reply, learned senior counsel would plead malice in law. 10. Now, the points for consideration are: (1) Whether G.O.Ms. No. 71 dated 17.05.2023 and G.O.Ms. No. 47 dated 22.05.2023 would apply to the transfer of teachers? (2) Should ratification from the government ‘sine qua non’ effect transfers? (3) Whether the Memo dated 06.06.2024 (abeyance) issued by the 1st respondent suffer from vice of lack of reasons? (4) Whether the Memo dated 18.07.2024, (rejection) issued by the 1st respondent suffers from vice of lack of reasons? 11. It is an accepted principle that in the public service, transfer is an incident of service. Normally, while exercising judicial review under Art 226 of the Constitution of India, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order that is made in the public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala-fide. 12. The Special Chief Secretary to the Government, Finance Department vide G.O.Ms. No. 71 dated 17.05.2023 issued guidelines for transfer of employees for the year 2023. The existing ban on transfer of employees was relaxed from 22nd May to 31st May. It was clarified in the said G.O. that transfers shall be effected only on request and administrative grounds. 12. The Special Chief Secretary to the Government, Finance Department vide G.O.Ms. No. 71 dated 17.05.2023 issued guidelines for transfer of employees for the year 2023. The existing ban on transfer of employees was relaxed from 22nd May to 31st May. It was clarified in the said G.O. that transfers shall be effected only on request and administrative grounds. The employees who completed two years of service at a station as of 30.04.2023 are only eligible for request transfers and those who completed five years of service at a station as of said date shall be invariably transferred. Clause No. 5 of the said G.O. exempts the Education Departments viz. School Education, Higher Education, Intermediate Education, Technical Education, and the Education Departments working under the Welfare Departments from the transfer guidelines. It further prescribes that those departments may devise their guidelines with the prior approval of the Finance Department. The ban on transfers shall come into force with effect from 01.06.2023. 13. The 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms. No. 47 dated 22.05.2023 making the A.P. Teachers (Regulation of Transfers) Rules. The said G.O. was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 78 and 99 of A.P. Education Act, 1982, and under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Commissioner of School Education shall take action to call for the applications for the transfer of teachers Online and conduct Web counseling. The Commissioner shall give detailed instructions along with a schedule. The Commissioner shall also take steps to conduct Web-based counseling duly inviting the applications from the Headmasters (Gr.II)/Teachers online. The Commissioner of School Education is the competent authority to issue any clarifications from time to time. 14. Rule 2 of the Transfer Rules deals with Criteria for Transfers. The Headmasters (Gr.II), who have completed 5 academic years of service in a particular school as of the date of closure of Academic Year 2022-2023, shall be transferred compulsorily. The teachers, other than Headmasters (Gr.II), who have completed 8 academic years of service in a particular school as of the date of closure of the Academic Year 2022-2023, shall be transferred compulsorily. There shall be no minimum service required for applying for a request transfer. The other conditions are also stipulated. 15. As per Rule 4, the appointing authority shall issue transfer and posting orders based on the outcome of the web options exercised by the Headmaster (Gr.II)/Teachers. 16. There shall be no minimum service required for applying for a request transfer. The other conditions are also stipulated. 15. As per Rule 4, the appointing authority shall issue transfer and posting orders based on the outcome of the web options exercised by the Headmaster (Gr.II)/Teachers. 16. As per Rule 5, the Regional Joint Director of School Education concerned shall be the competent authority to issue posting and transfer orders of the Headmasters (Gr.II) working in the Government High Schools, after the approval by the committee. In respect of transfers of teachers of Government High Schools, Zilla Parishad/MPP Schools, the District Educational Officers concerned shall be the competent authority to issue transfer orders to all the teachers, after approval by the committee. 17. Thus, the Regional Joint Director and the concerned District Educational Officers are the competent authorities to issue transfer orders. Once the transfer orders are issued by the competent authority with the approval of the committee, the order will not be reviewed or modified either by the committee or by the competent authority. The Headmaster (Gr.II)/Teacher, who is on transfer shall be relieved with immediate effect from the present place of work on receipt of the transfer orders and shall join the new school where they are posted on the next day or issue/receipt of orders. Teachers (including subject teachers) who are transferred under Transfer Counselling shall be relieved subject to the condition that there shall be 50% of regular teachers working in the school and also only the senior Teachers shall be relieved. 18. Rue 16 speaks about the appeal mechanism. An appeal against the order of the District Educational Officer shall lie with the Regional Joint Director of School Education and an appeal against the orders of the Regional Joint Director of School Education shall lie with the Commissioner of School Education and such an appeal should be submitted within 10 days. Appeal, as seen from Clause (iii) of Rule 16 is relating to the transfer counseling. The Commissioner of School Education got revisional jurisdiction either suo moto or on an application. 19. Rule 19 of the G.O., is like an exception to other rules. The Government can relax any criteria or Rule in a given case for the reason to be recorded in writing justifying such relaxation and in the public interest. 20. The Commissioner of School Education got revisional jurisdiction either suo moto or on an application. 19. Rule 19 of the G.O., is like an exception to other rules. The Government can relax any criteria or Rule in a given case for the reason to be recorded in writing justifying such relaxation and in the public interest. 20. It is pertinent to mention here that a schedule is fixed as per G.O.Ms. No. 47 to make applications and other criteria. As per the schedule, one has to make an application from 24.05.2023 to 26.05.2023. Those applications will be considered in terms of the G.O. The schedule prescribes the entire schedule for making applications, certificate verification, display of provisional seniority list, objections, redressal of objections, display of final seniority list with entitlement of points, display of vacancies, online web option and generation of lists. Thus, those employees who made applications as per the schedule, their cases were considered in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 47 dated 22.05.2023. 21. After counseling, in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 47 dated 22.05.2023, the Government considered transfers of 653 teachers on spouse/medical/mutual grounds. The District Educational Officers concerned, forwarded the lists to the Commissioner of School Education for ratification. Those lists, as seen from the material, were forwarded by the District Educational Officers in August and September, 2023. Even before ratification orders were received from the competent authority, the teachers who were transferred, joined in the transferee places. Later, Memo No. 1742374/Ser.II/A.2/2022, dated 18.04.2024 was issued ratifying the transfers. 22. Of course, nothing was mentioned about the ban in G.O.Ms. No. 47 dated 22.05.2023. However, there is a general ban on transfers in G.O.Ms. No. 71 dated 17.05.2023. It is also not out of place to mention here that all the petitioners made applications after regular transfers in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 47 dated 22.05.2023 on medical/spouse/mutual grounds. So the applications made by the petitioners are after the counseling schedule mentioned in G.O.Ms. No. 47 dated 22.05.2023. 23. G.O.Ms. No. 47 dated 22.05.2023 was issued by 1st respondent in the exercise of powers conferred under Sections 78 and 99 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 and Article 309 of the Constitution of India in super-session of earlier notification. These regulations are called A.P. Teachers (Regulation of Transfers) Rules. As discussed supra, a detailed procedure was prescribed regarding transfers. G.O.Ms. No. 47 dated 22.05.2023 was issued by 1st respondent in the exercise of powers conferred under Sections 78 and 99 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 and Article 309 of the Constitution of India in super-session of earlier notification. These regulations are called A.P. Teachers (Regulation of Transfers) Rules. As discussed supra, a detailed procedure was prescribed regarding transfers. A tentative schedule to make the applications was fixed from 24.05.2023 to 26.05.2023 and the entire exercise would be completed by 11.06.2023. It seems transfers were effected to the employees who made applications by following the procedure mandated in G.O.Ms. No. 47 dated 22.05.2023. 24. The petitioners and other similarly situated persons made a request seeking transfer. In fact, learned senior counsel as well as learned counsel for petitioners would fairly submit that the petitioners and other similarly situated persons made applications to the Principal Secretary, Minister, and other officials for request transfers. The contention of the learned counsels that the Government can relax the criteria as per Rule 19 of G.O.Ms. No. 47 dated 22.05.2023, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not apply to the cases of the petitioners. The relaxation mentioned under Rule 19 should be construed as relaxation in the mechanism evolved in G.O.Ms. No. 47 dated 22.05.2023 i.e. the web counseling is prescribed as per Rule 12 and the entitlement of points was prescribed under Rules 6 to 9 of the G.O.Ms. No. 47. 25. It is settled law that the rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India take precedence over executive instructions in the event of a conflict. This is because the rules are considered to be the same as an act of a legislature, and executive instructions cannot override them. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.N. Nagarajan and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 1979 SC 1676 ruled that the government's executive power cannot override rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 26. Of course, G.O.Ms. No. 47 was issued under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, and the executive instructions issued under G.O.Ms. No. 71 dated 17.05.2023 is under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. This Court does not find any conflict in these two G.Os. The transfer ban was lifted from 22.05.2023 to 31.05.2023. The ban comes into force from 01.06.2023. No. 71 dated 17.05.2023 is under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. This Court does not find any conflict in these two G.Os. The transfer ban was lifted from 22.05.2023 to 31.05.2023. The ban comes into force from 01.06.2023. In the light of Clause No. 5 of G.O.Ms. No. 71, 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms. No. 47 dated 22.05.2023. Even, as per the tentative schedule, as per G.O.Ms. No. 47 dated 22.05.2023 one has to make the application from 24.05.2023 to 26.05.2023. Merely because the transfer ban was not mentioned in G.O.Ms. No. 47 dated 22.05.2023, however, all the petitioners made request transfers after the time stipulated in the G.O. and hence those applications were presumed to have been made when the transfer ban was in force and thus, ratification from the Government is needed in those cases. 27. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, though the transfer procedure in respect of the petitioners is regulated under G.O.Ms. No. 47 dated 22.05.2023, the ban on transfers with effect from 01.06.2023 applies to the petitioners also. In that view of the matter, there is no conflict between G.O.Ms. No. 71 dated 17.05.2023, and G.O.Ms. No. 47 dated 22.05.2023. 28. As discussed supra, the petitioners and other employees made applications to the Principal Secretary, Minster and others. After considering all the applications, the Commissioner of School Education, A.P., called for information from the respective DEOs regarding request transfers of teachers/employees. The 1st respondent-Principal Secretary may be the Head of the Department at the Secretariat level. However, A.P. Government Business Rules 2018, Clause No. 15, deals with the cases to be circulated to the Chief Minister and the Governor. Clause 15 (1) reads thus: “Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the classes of cases in column (3) of the Third Schedule shall be submitted to the Chief Minister by the Secretary through the Minister in charge, before issuing of orders.” Schedule III is annexed to the counter affidavit. S. No. 33 in Schedule III reads thus: “33. Policy questions. Cases raising questions of policy and cases of administrative importance not already covered in cases listed at column (2) of Third Schedule, they have to be placed before the Chief Minister.” 29. S. No. 33 in Schedule III reads thus: “33. Policy questions. Cases raising questions of policy and cases of administrative importance not already covered in cases listed at column (2) of Third Schedule, they have to be placed before the Chief Minister.” 29. Thus, the Business Rules make it clear that in respect of policy and administrative importance not covered by cases listed in column No. 2, they have to be placed before the Chief Minister. Indeed in Paragraph-12 of the counter, it was specifically contended that in respect of 653 teachers, transfer orders have been circulated for ratification to the competent authority i.e. the Chief Minister. After receiving approval (ratification) from the Chief Minister, the competent authority issued ratification orders vide Memo No. 1742374/SER.II/A.2/2022 dated 18.04.2024 along with financial concurrence. No rejoinder was filed to deny the averment made in the counter affidavit. 30. Smt. S. Pranathi, learned Special Government Pleader submitted the files relating to ratification in relation to teachers of 653 in number and the file relating to petitioners. This Court perused the file, in respect of the transfers of 653 teachers. The then Minister forwarded the file to the Chief Minister by signing file on 11.01.2024, post facto, and the same was approved (ratified) by the Chief Minister on 13.03.2024. Thereafter, a memo dated 18.04.2024 was issued by the 1st respondent. Learned Special Government Pleader would contend that even in respect of one individual, if it is a request transfer, the file must be routed through the Minister to the Chief Minister, and the latter ratifies the same. In fact, in the file submitted to the Court, the out of seven memos referred to supra, in one memo, it related one individual. Even in the present cases also the file was forwarded by the then Minister to the Chief Minister asking for post facto ratification by signing the same on 02.06.2024. Later the same was rejected. 31. Though the learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the Principal Secretary is the competent authority for ratification, because of the Business Rules, this Court is of the considered opinion the ratification from the Government should be construed as ratification from the Chief Minister. 32. Case at hand, the 1st respondent-Principal Secretary issued transfer proceedings without getting ratification from the competent authority. 32. Case at hand, the 1st respondent-Principal Secretary issued transfer proceedings without getting ratification from the competent authority. Unless and until the competent authority ratifies the transfer orders, the 1st respondent-Principal Secretary cannot issue transfer orders. Though a practice is developed, as seen from the files, getting ratification, post facto, however, as per the Rules, this Court is the considered opinion that ratification is sine qua non for effecting transfers on request. 33. In the Memo dated 18.07.2024, impugned in the writ petitions, it was specifically mentioned that the seven memos were issued without the approval (ratification) from the competent authority. A specific reason was assigned in the memo about the non-ratification. Thus, in view of the reason assigned in the Memo, the Memo impugned in the writ petitions passed the test of legal scrutiny qua assigning reasons. The abeyance order vide Memo dated 06.06.2024 has culminated with the Memo dated 18.07.2024, which was impugned in the writ petitions, and hence no separate finding is warranted. 34. Given the discussion supra, since the memos seven in number referred to supra, (transfer orders) were issued without ratification and such a ratification was rejected by the competent authority and reasons were assigned in the rejection memo, this Court does not find any merit in these writ petitions. The writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 35. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are Dismissed. No costs. It is made clear that this order will not preclude the petitioners to make fresh applications in accordance with rules. 36. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.