THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.28069 OF 2011 Dated:14.10.2011 Between: Smt.M.A.Anandam .. Petitioner And Union of India represented by Comptroller and Auditor General of India, 9, Deena Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.28069 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is the Assistant Audit Officer (earlier designated as Section Officer) in the office of the Divisional Audit Office, Guntakal. Her husband Sri D.Rajasekhar is also railway employee (Audit Officer). She got promotion in 1998. She and her husband were posted at Secunderabad. The petitioner was working as Assistant Audit Officer in Travel Headquarters at Secunderabad which has six Divisional Audit Offices, namely, Vijayawada, Guntur, Guntakal, Nanded, Secunderabad and Hyderabad. By G.O.O.No.37, dated 28.12.2010, she was transferred and posted as Assistant Audit Officer to Traffic Audit Inspection Section along with another female employee, namely, Smt. Rajalaxmi Murali. She assailed the said order in O.A.No.359 of 2011 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. By impugned order dated 28.06.2011, the learned Tribunal dismissed the said O.A. observing that the representation made by the applicant or her husband seeking transfer to Hyderabad, if made may be considered subject to the condition that they would not again take the plea that they being spouses should be posted at same place. The counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the petitioner has been subjected to victimization. He would urge that as per Paragraph No.5.9.1 of MSO (Admn.), Section Officers can be accommodated in any of the Sections and no prejudice would be caused to anybody if the petitioner is posted in one of the sections. We have given our anxious consideration. We are convinced that both the contentions must fail. The plea of victimization appears to be an afterthought. No such plea was ever raised either in the application filed before the Tribunal nor raised before the Tribunal when the matter was heard. The only plea that was raised was that as per the transfer policy the husband and wife, as far as possible, be posted in the same place and that the applicant has to take care of the family. After perusing the material placed before us, we are convinced that the plea of victimization is misconceived. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant Audit Officer and posted at Travel Headquarters at Secunderabad in 1998. As per the averment made in the counter of the Railways before the Tribunal, the Section Officers (now designated as Assistant Audit Officers) should be given an opportunity to gain work experience in various branch offices. Therefore, when the transfer is made keeping in view the general policy, the same cannot be termed as arbitrary. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) ____________________ (K.G. SHANKAR, J) 14.10.2011 KH