ORDER : SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J. The above writ petition is filed impugning the proceedings impugning the proceedings issued by the 2 nd respondent vide CCST’S Ref.No.DXZ(1)/618/2024 dated 20.09.2024 (Ex.P1), transferring the petitioner, Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST) from the office of Assistant Commissioner (ST), Nellore-III Circle, Nellore Division to the office of Assistant Commissioner (ST), Narasaraopeta Circle, Guntur-II Division, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.75 Finance (HR.I-PLG. & POLICY) Department, dated 17.08.2024 & G.O.Ms.No.170 Revenue (Commercial Taxes) Department dated 22.08.2024. 2. a) In the affidavit, it was pleaded that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer on 30.10.2009 and later promoted as Deputy Assistant Commissioner(ST) on 02.09.2022 and posted to the office of Assistant Commissioner (ST), Nellore-III Circle, Nellore Division. The petitioner submitted a joining report on 05.09.2022. The petitioner was elected as a Secretary of A.P. Commercial Tax Services Association, Vijayawada on 15.03.2022. The petitioner has completed 1 year and 10 months at Nellore-III Circle. The General Administration Department has issued Circular Memo No.GAD01- SW0SERA/13/2024-SW, dated 22.08.2024. In pursuance of the said circular, A.P. Commercial Tax Services Association forwarded the information regarding office bearers and details of the state office bearers. b) Be that at it may, by the proceedings impugned (Ex.P1) in the writ petition, the petitioner was transferred. After issuance of the transfer order (Ex.P1) the petitioner made a representation dated 21.09.2024, however the same was not considered. Hence, the writ petition. 3. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 2 nd respondent. it was contended, interalia, that the petitioner completed 5 years of service in different cadres in Nellore Town. The petitioner’s candidature is squarely covered as per guidelines. The list of bearers was not furnished to the Head of Department through the General Administration Department. The service associations submitted a list of office bearers to the Secretary to the Government, Services & HRM Department, Velagapudi. The said list was not forwarded to the HODs and eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. An interim order was granted on 25.09.2024 and the same was extended from time to time. 5. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner filed I.A.No.3 of 2024 to direct respondents 2 and 3 to pay the salary from 22.09.2024 onwards. The said list was not forwarded to the HODs and eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. An interim order was granted on 25.09.2024 and the same was extended from time to time. 5. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner filed I.A.No.3 of 2024 to direct respondents 2 and 3 to pay the salary from 22.09.2024 onwards. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended that the petitioner has not been relieved in pursuance of the transfer order impugned (Ex.P1) and in fact, has been continuing at the office of the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Nellore-III Circle, Nellore Division. 6. Heard Smt.Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services for respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services for respondents reiterated the contentions as per the averments made in the affidavit and counter affidavit respectively. 8. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the transfer of petitioner vide CCST’S Ref.No.DXZ(1)/618/2024 dated 20.09.2024 (Ex.P1) is legally sustainable? 9. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.75 Finance (HR.I-PLG. & POLICY) Department, dated 17.08.2024 framing guidelines for transfers and postings of employees. In pursuance of the said G.O., the 1 st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.170 Revenue (Commercial Taxes) Department dated 22.08.2024 prescribing guidelines/instructions, while lifting the ban on transfers. 10. Para No.I of the G.O.Ms.No.170 dated 22.08.2024 deals with principles for transfers and postings. Para No.II General Guidelines and Para No.III deals with the procedures for transfers and postings. Clause No.5 of Para No.I deal with the transfer of employees other than those who have completed 5 years of stay at a station and on personal requests. Clause No.9 of para No.I prescribes preferences. Clause No.7 of para No.II deals with transfers of office bearers of recognized employee associations. Clause No.7 (a) & (b) of para No.II mandates that the list of the office bearers at the division/district levels of the recognized employee associations shall be forwarded to the Joint Commissioners (ST) through the respective District Collector and the list of office bearers of State associations shall be forwarded to the CCST at the State level through the General Administration Department (GAD) only. It further clarifies that the transferring authority need not consider any list not received either through the District Collector or through General Administration. It further clarifies that the transferring authority need not consider any list not received either through the District Collector or through General Administration. Clause No.7 (c) of para No.II makes a further exception that the transfers can be effected on administrative grounds even before the expiry of the nine years after recording reasons. 11. Para No.III prescribes the procedures for transfers and postings. All the employees who completed 5 years of tenure in a station and employees seeking request transfers shall apply through the online CTD portal. After submitting the online application the applicant should download the PDF format (including all the supporting documents) and submit the signed copy to the respective controlling officer, who will forward it to the designated authority. The transfers will be determined based on performance, as assessed by a designated Committee. At the Head Office level, a Committee will evaluate the performance of Assistant Commissioners (ST) and Deputy Assistant Commissioners (ST), while at the Divisional level, a separate Committee will assess the performance of Goods and Service Tax Officers (GSTOs) and officers of lower cadres. 12. Ex.P5 is the letter forwarded by the President of the association to the Secretary to the Government, Services & HRM Department, in pursuance of Circular Memo No.GAD01-SW0SERA/13/2024-SW, dated 22.08.2024 (Ex.P4), by annexing the list of office bearers. The list of office bearers was filed on page No.30 of the writ petition. The name of the petitioner is shown as one of the Secretaries. 13. Ex.P1 transfer proceedings indicate the transfer of 13 employees in the cadre of Deputy Assistant Commissioners (ST). It was mentioned that the transfers of 13 employees were ordered on request. The petitioner specifically pleaded in the affidavit that he did not submit any application seeking transfer. In Paragraph 6 of the affidavit, the petitioner specifically pleaded that he did not apply for transfer online/offline and gave options for transfer. Apart from that it was specifically contended that the petitioner completed 1 year 10 months of service at Nellore-III circle. 14. In the counter affidavit, it was pleaded that the petitioner completed 5 years of service in different cadres in Nellore Town for the period ending 31.07.2024. Therefore, he is squarely covered by the guidelines issued for effecting transfers. Apart from that it was specifically contended that the petitioner completed 1 year 10 months of service at Nellore-III circle. 14. In the counter affidavit, it was pleaded that the petitioner completed 5 years of service in different cadres in Nellore Town for the period ending 31.07.2024. Therefore, he is squarely covered by the guidelines issued for effecting transfers. Regarding the petitioner’s capacity as officer bearer, in the counter affidavit, it was contended that the Services & HRM Department has not forwarded the list to the office of the Chief Commissioner (ST) (HOD). 15. The scope of judicial review in transfer matters is very limited. Unless the petitioner pleads and proves that the transfer was effected contrary to the guidelines, and suffers from arbitrariness, and malafides, normally, the Courts will not interfere with transfers. An employee cannot claim absolute immunity from the transfers when the post he/she occupies is transferable. For that matter, the executive instructions or administrative directions do not confer any indefeasible right to claim transfer or posting in favour of the employee. The transfer of an employee from one place to place will not affect the service condition of the employee, except the place of functioning. 16. Whether failure to follow the guidelines issued by the 1 st respondent would amount to arbitrariness? 17. The 1 st respondent since, issued guidelines regarding transfers and postings, the Heads of the Department of 1 st respondent are bound by those guidelines. The transfers should be made in adherence to the guidelines, but not at the whims and fancies of the HODs. An administrative authority, who purports to act by its regulation must be bound by the regulations. 18. In E.P. Royappa Vs. State of T.N. , [ (1974) 4 SCC 3 ] , the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: “… The basic principle which, therefore, informs both Articles 14 and 16 is equality and inhibition against discrimination. Now, what is the content and reach of this great equalising principle? It is a founding faith, to use the words of Bose. J., “a way of life”, and it must not be subjected to a narrow pedantic or lexicographic approach. We cannot countenance any attempt to truncate its all-embracing scope and meaning, for to do so would be to violate its activist magnitude. It is a founding faith, to use the words of Bose. J., “a way of life”, and it must not be subjected to a narrow pedantic or lexicographic approach. We cannot countenance any attempt to truncate its all-embracing scope and meaning, for to do so would be to violate its activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be “cribbed, cabined and confined” within traditional and doctrinaire limits. From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14, and if it effects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Article 16. Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment …" 19. In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi , [ (1981) 1 SCC 722 ] , the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: “… … It must therefore now be taken to be well settled that what Article 14 strikes at is arbitrariness because any action that is arbitrary, must necessarily involve negation of equality. … … Wherever therefore there is arbitrariness in State action whether it be of the legislature or of the executive or of an “authority” under Article 12, Article 14 immediately springs into action and strikes down such State action. In fact, the concept of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness pervades the entire constitutional scheme and is a golden thread which runs through the whole of the fabric of the Constitution.” 20. Case at hand, the 2 nd respondent violated the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.170 dated 22.08.2024 to a great extent and hence, such violation partakes the character of arbitrariness. 21. Within the realm of judicial review in common law jurisdictions, it is established that constitutional courts are entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring the lawfulness of executive decisions, rather than substituting their own judgment to decide the rights of the parties, which they would exercise in civil jurisdiction. 21. Within the realm of judicial review in common law jurisdictions, it is established that constitutional courts are entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring the lawfulness of executive decisions, rather than substituting their own judgment to decide the rights of the parties, which they would exercise in civil jurisdiction. It has been held that the primary purpose of quashing any action is to preserve order in the legal system by preventing excess and abuse of power or to set aside arbitrary actions. Wade on Administrative Law states that the purpose of quashing is not the final determination of private rights, for a private party must separately contest his own rights before the administrative authority. Such private party is also not entitled to compensation merely because the administrative action is illegal … … It is equally incumbent upon the courts, as a secondary measure, to address the injurious consequences arising from arbitrary and illegal actions. This concomitant duty to take reasonable measures to restitute the injured is our overarching constitutional purpose. Manoj Kumar Vs. Union of India, (2024) 3 SCC 563 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 163. 22. Whether the guidelines have statutory force was dealt with by this Court in W.P.No.20524 of 2024 dated 24.12.2024. This Court by placing reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Paluru Ramakrishnaiah Vs. Union of India , [ AIR 1990 SC 166 ] ; Nagpur Improvement Trust Vs. Yadaorao Jagannath Kumbhare , [ (1999) 8 SCC 99 ] ; North West Railway Vs. Chanda Devi , [ (2008) 2 SCC 108 ] and Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Rabindranath Choubey, (2020) 18 SCC 71 eventually concluded that guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024 issued in exercise of the executive Power of State under Article 162 of the Constitution of India , have statutory force. 23. The Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Mr.Chandru H.N. Vs. State of Karnataka and others (supra-1), while answering a reference where the guidelines of the Government Order No.DPAR 4 STR 2001, Bangalore, dated 22.11.2001 relating to a transfer of Government servants, which has come into force from 22.11.2001 have any statutory force or not, answered the reference in affirmative. State of Karnataka and others (supra-1), while answering a reference where the guidelines of the Government Order No.DPAR 4 STR 2001, Bangalore, dated 22.11.2001 relating to a transfer of Government servants, which has come into force from 22.11.2001 have any statutory force or not, answered the reference in affirmative. The Full Bench held that in the absence of any rules providing for regulating the transfer and providing guidelines therein, the executive order issued in exercise of power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India will have statutory force and can be enforced, as the extent of executive power of the State to make laws is subject to the provisions of the Constitution and the executive power of the State shall extend to the matters in respect to which legislature has power to make laws. 24. In the light of the above pronouncements, this Court is of the considered opinion that G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024 and G.O.Ms.No.170 dated 22.08.2024, framing guidelines for transfers and postings of employees have statutory force. 25. In the case at hand, as discussed supra, despite the petitioner being office bearer and exempted from transfer given the guidelines issued by the authority, the transfer proceedings were issued. The flagrant violation of the guidelines, to the extent possible, by the authority is a sheer abuse of process and it amounts to arbitrary action and thus violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India . That apart no reasons were also mentioned in the order of transfer. 26. The contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, that the transfer was made in adherence to the guidelines this court is not persuaded with the said submission. The judgments cited by the learned Assistant Government pleader, though dealt with transfer issues, one should be cautious about the facts and ratio in each case. 27. In Abdul Kayoom Vs. CIT , AIR 1962 SC 680 : 1961 SCC OnLine SC 244 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed thus: “ … … Each case depends on its own facts, and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough, because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) [(1960) 3 SCR N 681] by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) [(1960) 3 SCR N 681] by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, its broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive …” * * * “Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it”. 28. Given the discussion supra, the Writ Petition is Allowed by setting aside the proceedings issued by the 2 nd respondent vide CCST’S Ref.No.DXZ(1)/618/2024 dated 20.09.2024 (Ex.P1). No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.