IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.17276 OF 2011 Between: B.V. Chiranjeevi ..... Petitioner AND The Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Corporate Office, Visakhapatnam & 4 others ..... Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.17276 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the official respondents more particularly, the 2nd respondent in not considering the claims of the petitioner for transfer to Ankapalli/Visakhapatnam/ Narsipatnam Division Office and accommodating 4th and 5th respondents at ERO Narsipatnam and Ankapalli respectively by duly setting aside the impugned Memo No.SE/0/VSP/AD/A5/D.No.1538/2011, dated 07.06.2011, issued by the 2nd respondent in so far as posting 4th and 5th respondents at ERO Narsipatnam and Ankapalli and posting the petitioner to Sub-ERO/Paderu of ERO Narsipatnam as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the transfer guideline Nos.2(a) and 7 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to transfer the petitioner to Ankapalli/Visakhapatnam/Narsipatnam Division duly taking eight years of service in the present post/station/cadre as on 30.06.2011 and as per the transfer guideline Nos.2(a) and 7 issued by the 2nd respondent. 2. The averments, in brief, stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner was initially appointed as Line Man in respondent corporation and subsequently, vide proceedings, dated 17.02.2003, issued by the 2nd respondent, he was appointed on transfer as LDC and posted to ERO Narsipatnam and joined duty on 06.03.2003. The first respondent issued Transfer Guidelines in Memo, dated 21.03.2011, stipulating the procedure for the purpose of effecting transfers during 2010-2011. Since the petitioner completed eight years’ of service in the present post/station/cadre as on 30.06.2011, he submitted a representation, dated 26.05.2011, to the 2nd respondent requesting to transfer him from Agency area to plain area viz., Ankapalli/Visakhapatnam of Narsipatnam Division office on Medical and Spouse grounds. It is further stated that the respondents prepared a list of LDCs who had completed five years of service in the present stations as on 30.06.2011. In the said list, the name of the petitioner was shown at Serial No.9 and the date of joining in the present station was correctly mentioned as 06.03.2003. The respondents prepared another list of LDCs who would be completing three years of service in the present posts as on 30.06.2011. In the said list, the name of the petitioner was shown at Serial No.9, but the date of joining was changed to 02.01.2006 contrary to the material available on record. However, 4th respondent, whose name was shown at Serial No.14 by taking into account his date of joining in the present station as 20.08.2004, has been placed at Serial No.7 while computing the length of service in the present post. Like wise, the 3rd respondent who had completed more than nine years of service was retained at ERO Ankapalli contrary to the Transfer Guideline No.2(a) issued vide Memo, dated 21.05.2011. Further, as per Guideline No.7, the period of service in Circle office/Zonal office/Corporate office and other posts in the same place is to be treated as service in one station for reckoning three years/five years. It is further stated that having joined in the present Station on 06.03.2003 and being eligible for transfer to plain areas, both as per his seniority in the present station and as well as Guideline Nos.2(a) and 7, the 2nd respondent ought to have considered his request for transfer to Ankapalli/Visakhapatnam or Narsipatnam Division office in preference to that of 4th and 5th respondents, but only with an intention to accommodate 4th and 5th respondents, the 2nd respondent had effected the transfer of the petitioner by taking wrong date of joining in violation of Guideline No.7. It is further stated that instead of considering his above request as per the Guidelines, the 2nd respondent had transferred him to Sub-ERO Paderu. The Telugu Nadu Vidyut Karmika Sangam made a representation, dated 10.06.2011, requesting to transfer the petitioner as per the guidelines to plain areas. However, ignoring the above request and deviating from the Guidelines, the 2nd respondent had chosen to accommodate the 4th and 5th respondents. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner made a detailed representation, dated 13.06.2011, to the 1st respondent requesting him to consider the whole issue and the same is pending consideration till date. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has put up eight years of service, and therefore, preference has to be given to him for transfer to any one of the three places as opted by the petitioner, but the respondents, instead of doing so, gave the first option to his juniors and allowed six years of service of respondents for the purpose of transferring them and, therefore, their transfer is contrary to the guidelines issued by the respondents. 4. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondents contended that as per the guidelines, counselling to the petitioner and others was held and transfers have been effected and there is no illegality in passing the transfer orders. 5. There cannot be any dispute that transfer is one of the incidents of service. Unless mala fides are attributed against the transferring authority or it is contrary to the rules, ordinarily, this Court would not interfere with the same. But considering the fact that weightage should be given to a person who worked for more than eight years in Agency areas, the petitioner has given an option to choose three places to post him to a place of his choice in the plain areas. The petitioner opted for three places but postings were given to respondents 4 and 5 in respect of two places which were chosen by petitioner and one vacancy is available at Narsipatnam Division. Therefore, appropriate decision has to be taken in accordance with the rules governing the service conditions of the petitioner and also the guidelines for transfers. 6. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to take appropriate decision considering the request of the petitioner in posting him to one of the three places subject to availability of vacancy duly taking note of the fact that the petitioner has worked for about eight years in the Agency area, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter, communicate the same to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 7th July, 2011. KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.17276 OF 2011 7th July, 2011 KL