THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL No.473 of 2010 Dated:14.07.2010 Between: The Union of India, rep., by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and others .. Appellants And Shri Bathini Shivashankar Reddy (BSSS Reddy) .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL No.473 of 2010 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The appeal by the Union of India is against the interlocutory orders of the learned Single Judge. Of course, ordinarily the Letters Patent Bench does not interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge, while dealing with the interlocutory matters. But, if situation so warrants, the intra Court appellate Bench may reverse the impugned orders if they are against law laid down by the Apex Court. The fact of the matter is not in dispute. The petitioner is a Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). He was posted in the State of Andhra Pradesh in 1997. Thereafter, for the last thirteen years, he has been asked to move from place to place in this State. By impugned order, namely, “Movement Order”, dated 30.04.2010, he was directed to proceed to Dhanbad and report to the concerned Unit Commander. Assailing the same, he filed the Writ Petition. The main ground is that while he was posted at CISF Unit, BHEL, he met with a serious accident while bringing the daughter of the Commandant from school on a motor cycle. It is also his case that he has been undergoing treatment at Hyderabad and, therefore, transfer is arbitrary. The learned Single Judge, having found prima facie case, admitted the Writ Petition. The balance of convenience was also decided in favour of the Constable and this Court ordered initially status quo, which was made absolute by the impugned order dated 14.06.2010. This Court heard the counsel for the Union of India and the counsel for the Constable. It is axiomatic that transfer is an incident of Government Service and ordinarily a Court of judicial review shall not interfere unless such transfer is impeached on the ground of want of jurisdiction and arbitrariness. Any transfer, of course, made with a mala fide intention should also suffer invalidation. But, in this case, we are convinced prima facie these grounds are absent. It is well settled that the balance of convenience is to be decided depending on the prima facie case. When, prima facie, the petitioner is likely not to succeed in the Writ Petition, an interim order stalling the transfer is not called for. For the above reasons, we set aside the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and the Registry is directed to post the Writ Petition, for final hearing, on 28.07.2010, before appropriate bench, after obtaining orders from the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. The Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed. _____________ V.V.S. RAO, J ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 14.07.2010 KH