IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION Nos. 21709 & 22579 OF 2009 Between D.Venkat Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND 01. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Range Head Quarters, CRPF, Barkas, Hyderabad. 02. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, CRPF, Barkar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MS. G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION Nos.21709 & 22579 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner in these two writ petitions is a constable in the CRPF and he has been working at Hyderabad since October, 2005. By order dated 25.08.2009, the petitioner was transferred from Hyderabad to 32 Bn at Manipur. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.19503 of 2009 and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by Order dated 14.09.2009 granting liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate representation before the respondents to reconsider the order of transfer dated 25.08.2009. Alleging that though such representation was made on 18.09.2009, no orders were passed by the respondents, the petitioner filed W.P.No.21709 of 2009 on 09.10.2009 and the same was adjourned for instructions of the respondents. In the meanwhile, by order dated 07.10.2009, the petitioner’s representation for reconsideration of his transfer to Manipur was rejected. Challenging the said order dated 07.10.2009, the petitioner filed W.P.No.22579 of 2009. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. The only ground upon which the impugned order is assailed before this Court is that as per the policy guidelines, the respondents are supposed to affect the transfers, if any, only during the summer and the impugned transfer in the middle of the academic year, without assigning any reasons is arbitrary and illegal. However no such guidelines, which prohibit the respondents from transferring an employee in the middle of the academic year could be placed before this Court. The fact that the petitioner has been at Hyderabad from the year 2005 and thus he has completed the prescribed tenure of three years by 2008 itself is not in dispute. May be that the impugned transfer has caused dislocation and inconvenience to the petitioner and his family members, however the petitioner’s grievances have already been considered by the respondents and have been rejected by order dated 07.10.2009. Such administrative decision in the absence of any mala fi des warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, these two Writ Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ Justice G. Rohini Date: 27.10.2009 Note: Furnish CC in two days. (B/o) Ivd/Mrb