HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.25508 OF 2007 DATE: 30.11.2007 Between: P. Hanmantha Rao S/o P. Venkat Rao, aged about 58 years, Occ: Prohibition and Excise Inspector, S.HO, Sangareddy, Medak District. … Petitioners AND The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad, and four others. ….Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.25508 OF 2007 ORAL ORDER: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5. 2. Challenging the order, dated 28.11.2007, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for brevity “the Tribunal”), dismissing the application O.A.No.4764 of 2007, whereby the petitioner sought to call for the records relating to Cr.No.A4/780/2007-16, dated 08.08.2007, of the respondent No.1, and the consequential proceedings Cr.No.A1/1105/2007, dated 09.08.2007, of the respondent No.3, and set aside the same by holding as illegal, arbitrary and against to the orders in G.O.Ms.No.379, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 29.08.1996, and for a further direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to continue the petitioner at Sangareddy, and allowing the applications V.M.A.Nos.464 and 468 of 2007, filed by the respondent No.5, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The only grievance of the petitioner, before the Tribunal as well as this Court, is that he was transferred from one branch to another in the same department. 4. It appears, the petitioner, while working as Station House Officer, Sangareddy, was subjected to transfer to another wing in the same department i.e., Distillery Wing vide Cr.No.A4/780/2007- 16, dated 08.08.2007. 5. Vide proceedings in Cr.No.7842/05/CPE/A1, dated 04.08.2007, the respondent No.4 directed all the Deputy Commissioners of Prohibition & Excise to effect the transfer of Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspectors working within their jurisdiction etc., as per the guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.143, Fin (W&M) Department, dated 21.06.2007 and hence several incumbents, who completed a tenure of two years and more, have been transferred, including the petitioner. 6. The contention of the petitioner is that, he will attain the age of superannuation by 31.08.2008, and, as a matter of policy, he shall not be transferred, in view of the condition in G.O.Ms.No.379, dated 29.08.1996, that the incumbents, who would attain the age of superannuation, within one year from the day on which proposes to transfer, may not be transferred. 7. For convenience and ready reference, Guideline Nos.10 and 11, which are relevant, in the proceedings in Cr.No.7842/05/CPE/A1, dated 04.08.2007, of the respondent No.4, are extracted hereunder: “10. The P&EIs/P&ESIs who have completed two years of stay in the present place of posting/working as on 31.8.2007 are to be transferred. In respect of individuals working at Check Posts, Mobile parties & difficult Stations as identified earlier the tenure shall be one year. 11. The employees who are attaining the age of superannuation within one year from the day on which proposes to transfer may not be transferred as per the G.O.Ms.No.379, GA(Ser.A) Dept., dated 29.8.1996.” 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, if Guideline No.11 is taken into account, the petitioner would fall within the category of incumbents, who would attain the age of superannuation within a year. 9. The said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced for the reason that Guideline No.10 is imperatively to be implemented and Guideline No.11 is only a matter of consideration by the department. Whether such a transfer is an expedient or not, is not within the domain of this Court and it is absolutely the discretion of the department and, of course, if the said transfer of the petitioner is devoid of three important conditions i.e., lack of jurisdiction, mala fides and contrary to the Rules, this Court would normally interfere. 10. In the instant case, while effecting the transfer, none of these conditions are violated by the competent authority. After all the transfer is an incident to the service. 11. Admittedly, vide proceedings Cr.No.A4/780/2007-16, dated 08.08.2007, the respondent No.1 directed all the Deputy Commissioners of Prohibition & Excise to effect the transfer of Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspectors, working within their jurisdiction, as per the guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.143, Fin (W&M) Department, dated 21.06.2007, and hence several incumbents, including the petitioner, have been transferred. 12. Further, the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.379, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 29.08.1996, on which the petitioner is relying upon, shall not prevail in view of the issuance of latest guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.143, Fin (W&M) Department, dated 21.06.2007. Apparently, the action of the competent authority appears to be on administrative grounds. 13. For the foregoing, we do not see any merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 30TH NOVEMBER 2007 KA