IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 728 of 2005 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 16/03/2005 in WP NO : 5261 OF 2005 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 G. Subhashini, (No. 940880348), W/o. Sri Vinay, Mahila Constable, No.99 Bn. RAF/CRPF, Hakimpet, Secunderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 2 The Inspector General of Police, Rapid Action Force, R.K.Puram, New Delhi. 3 The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Rapid Action Force, R.K, Puram, New Delhi. 4 The Commandant, No.99 Batallion RAF, Hakimpet, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.V.JAGAPATHI Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST.SOLICITOR GEN.) The Court, at the stage of admission, made the following : JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) The appellant is employed as a woman constable in the Central Reserve Police Force. At present she is working at 99 Battalion RAF, Hakimpet, Secunderabad. She is now transferred to a place in the State of Gujarat. She filed W.P.No.5261 of 2005, assailing the transfer. She pleaded medical and gynaec problems. Her grievance is that inspite of her representation, the respondents have not considered the same and are trying to shift her to the transferred place. The Writ Petition was disposed of by the learned single Judge through order, dated 16.03.2005, directing the respondents to consider the representation, dated 10.03.2005, made by the appellant. This Writ Appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is facing acute gynaec problems and transferring her to a remote place would only aggravate the same. He contends that even while the representation made by the appellant is pending, the respondents are insisting of her movement to the place of transfer. Learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that transfer is an incidence of service and that the transfer of the appellant was ordered only after taking into account the relevant factors. It is very rare that this Court interferes with the orders of transfer. It is for the appointing authority to take the relevant factors as well as the guidelines, framed for this purpose, into account and to pass appropriate orders. The appellant does not complain of violation of any guidelines framed in the matter of transfer. Her complaint is mostly based upon her personal problems. The learned single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the appellant on 10.03.2005. We are of the view that this direction would redress the grievance of the appellant to a substantial extent. However, if the appellant is moved to the transferred place, the consideration of the representation would become almost redundant. In that view of the matter, we dispose of the Writ Appeal directing that till the representation, dated 10.03.2005, submitted by the appellant is considered by the respondents and appropriate orders thereon are passed, the appellant shall not be shifted from the present station. (T.MEENA KUMARI, J) (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) Dt: 20.04.2005 bsv/lvl To 1 The Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 2 The Inspector General of Police, Rapid Action Force, R.K.Puram, New Delhi. 3 The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Rapid Action Force, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. 4 The Commandant, No.99 Batallion RAF, Hakimpet, Secunderabad. 5. Two CD copies