IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13864 of 2009 Between: D. Shyama Sudha, D/o. Aashirvadham, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Eluru, Range, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Aayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue order or orders or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to O.A.No. 567/09, rejection order dated 6-7-2009 and Transfer Order No. CCAP/4(2)/Estt/2009, dt. 20-6-2009 transferring the petitioner from Eluru to Visakhapatnam and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.L.ALI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.B.NARASIMHA SARMA The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri P.Swaroop Reddy) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, in O.A.No. 567 of 2009, dated 8.7.2009, and the Transfer orders No.CCAP/4 (2)/ Estt/2009, dated 20.6.2009, transferring the petitioner from Eluru to Visakhapatnam. While the petitioner was working as Additional Commissioner of Income Tax at Eluru, she has been transferred to Visakhapatnam. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the parents of the petitioners are sick and they cannot move to Visakhapatnam along with the petitioner. This contention cannot be accepted, as Visakhapatnam would have better medical facilities than Eluru. Another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a case has been filed against the parents of the petitioner by their daughter-in-law and therefore they cannot go to Visakhapatnam. This contention is totally irrelevant. During the course of arguments, it is revealed that the petitioner is a married woman and her husband is working at Eluru, but surprisingly she is not asking for retention at Eluru on that ground. Considering all the circumstances particularly the fact that the minimum period required to be posted at a place is two years, which is completed, and further as she is already relieved on 10.7.2009, as reported by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, there are absolutely no grounds to admit the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ___________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 13.7.2009 kpr