THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.9040 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 10.02.2010 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in dismissing O.A.No.4548 of 2008, filed by the petitioner for setting aside the proceedings dated 13.06.2008 issued by the first respondent transferring her from ICDS Project, Kurnool Rural to ICDS Project, Nandyal Rural. 2. The petitioner states that while she was working as Grade I Supervisor in ICDS Project, Kurnool Rural, the first respondent vide proceedings, dated 13.06.2008 transferred her to Nandyal Rural, as per G.O.Ms.No.134, dated 09.05.2008, which was issued lifting ban on transfers, though she opted for her transfer to Kurnool Urban, Nandikotkur and Nandyal Urban in the counselling held on 10.06.2008 as her husband is working as Lecturer in English in grant-in-aid post in SBSYM Decree College, Kurnool, which is a non-transferable post. Challenging the same, she filed O.A.No.4548 of 2008 before the Tribunal, which in turn dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the first respondent had violated the instructions issued in Clause VIII(d) of G.O.Ms.No.134 dated 09.05.2008 that in case of husband and wife, only one spouse shall be shifted following the prescribed proforma therein. She submitted that the husband of the petitioner is working as Lecturer in English in Grant-in-aid post at Kurnool, and therefore, she may be transferred to that place. 5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Services-II contended that since there are no regular sanctioned posts of Supervisor at the places opted by the petitioner, she was transferred to ICDS Project, Nandyal Rural, which is only at a distance of 5 Kms to Nandyal Urban. He further contended that the husband of the petitioner is not a Government employee and therefore, her case has not been considered under spouse ground. He also contended that when the first respondent sent her relieving order, dated 16.06.2008 through the office despatch Clerk, the petitioner refused to receive the same. 6. Now, the point for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal suffers from any illegalities or infirmities warranting interference by this Court. 7. The law is well settled that the transfer is an incidence of service and no employee can claim any right to be transferred to a particular place. The scope of interference in the order of transfer is very narrow and limited. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision, the same cannot be interfered with. That apart, the executive instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No.134 dated 09.05.2008 do not confer any enforceable right and justifiable ground to the petitioner so as to compel the respondents to post at the place of her choice. The Tribunal has gone through the material on record, relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in State of UP v. Gobardhan Lal ( 2004(3) SLR 239); Mohd. Masood Ahmand v. State of UP ( (2007) SCC 150); and Government of Andhra Pradesh v. G. Venkata Ratnam (2008) 9 SCC 345) and rightly dismissed the O.A., filed by the petitioner. Therefore, we do not find any infirmities in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is permitted to report to duty before the first respondent, who in turn may pass appropriate orders of posting, expeditiously, thereafter. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:27.04.2010. Note: Issue CC by three days. (Bo) sj