IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Writ Petition No.12165 of 2010 Between: P. George .. Petitioner And The Director General & Inspector General Of Police, A.P., Hyderabad and others .. Respondents ORDER: (per Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed assailing the validity and legality of the orders passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”) in O.A. No.3262 of 2010, dated 26-05-2010, wherein the Tribunal while dismissing the O.A. gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the Government by way of appeal provided under the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules against the order issued by the 1st respondent in proceedings Rc.No.579/G2/2010, dated 21-05-2010 transferring the petitioner from Kandukuru. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was transferred as Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Kandukur on 21-02-2009 and while working as such, within three months, he was again transferred to Police Head Quarters, Hyderabad. He is at the verge of retirement and is going to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-08-2010. According to the petitioner, as per transfer guidelines issued in G.O. Ms. No.379, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 29-08-1996, persons who are to attain superannuation within one year, cannot be transferred and have to be retained at the station in which they are working as far as possible. Hence, the impugned transfer order, which was issued by the 1st respondent without any reason, being violative of G.O. Ms. No.379, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 29-08-1996, is liable to be set aside. Be it noted that transfer is an incidence of service and is made on administrative grounds. Transfers are normally made to meet the needs of the administration. Whether a particular person is to be transferred to or retained at a particular place, is for the administration to consider, and certainly the administration must have effected the impugned transfer, keeping in view the administrative exigencies. This apart, it is well settled principle of law that this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not normally interfere in matter of transfers, unless the same are fraught with statutory violations or are made with mala fides. In the case on hand, the petitioner has not been able to show that his transfer is the result of any statutory violation or has been made with mala fides. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 25-05-2010 the petitioner made a representation to the Government requesting to retain him at the present place considering the fact that he is going to retire in less than three months. If that be so, it is open to the Government to consider the same uninfluenced by the observations made by this Court hereinabove, and pass appropriate orders. According, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 03-06-2010 Note: Issue CC tomorrow. (Bo) Svv