VIJAYAWADA: The AP High Court on Wednesday delivered a scathing rebuke to Chief Secretary K Vijayanand for failing to implement its orders, remarking that if judicial directions are not intended to be followed, ‘it is better to shut down the courts.’
A division bench comprising Justice Battu Devanand and Justice Avadhanam Hari Haranath Sharma made the strong observations while hearing a batch of petitions alleging irregularities in the evaluation of Group-I Main exam scripts.
The bench questioned the very purpose of the judiciary if courts are unable to secure justice for litigants and the public. It observed that when the Chief Secretary himself disregards court orders, it sends a disturbing message to subordinate officials about the sanctity of judicial authority. The judges asserted that the judiciary exists to uphold the rule of law and safeguard its integrity.
It may be recalled that the court had directed the government to immediately transfer officers who had cleared the Group-1 main examination and are currently serving in various posts to non-focal (non-priority) positions on February 11. It had also instructed the Chief Secretary to submit a compliance report within a week to the Registrar (Judicial). However, noting non-compliance, the bench had ordered Vijayanand’s personal appearance.
The HC expressed concern that the conduct of senior officials could erode public confidence in judiciary. In a strong observation, it remarked that keeping the soon-to-retire Chief Secretary in jail for four days would bring erring officials on track. It made clear that any advice suggesting non-implementation of court orders would not be tolerated.
During the latest hearing, the bench questioned why its direction to effect transfers ‘immediately’ had not been implemented, asking whether the Chief Secretary understood the meaning of the term.
When the Advocate General Dammalapati Srinivas attempted to intervene, the court stated that since the Chief Secretary was present, it would seek explanations directly from him.
The bench rejected the argument that service rules do not define focal and non-focal posts, citing 1966 executive orders as the basis for transfers. It said even an assistant section officer would know distinction and suggested consulting a dictionary or AI if needed.
Alleging possible collusion between the Chief Secretary and the concerned officers, the court directed immediate compliance with its orders and adjourned the matter to Thursday. The HC clarified that personal appearance would not be necessary if compliance is reported; otherwise, he must appear before the court.