IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 18127 of 2008 Between: T.Gowreeswara Rao S/o.late Sri Venkata Naidu A.P. State Housing Corporation, Regidi Mandal, Palakonda Division, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Urdu Galli, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector/Executive Director, A.P. State Housing Corporation, Srikakulam. 3 The District Manager, A.P. State Housing Corporation, Srikakulam. 4 The Deputy Executive Engineer, A.P. State Housing Corporation, Palakonda, Srikakulam District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the Proceedings Rc.No.1321/2006/E/HC, dt. 2.8.2008 issued by the third Respondent and the consequent Proceedings Dt. 8.8.2008 issued by the fourth Respondent transferring the petitioner from Regidi Mandal, Srikakulam District to Santhakaviti Mandal of Palakonda Division, Srikakulam District, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and set aside the same and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.CH.NAIDU Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.MOHAN RAMI REDDY The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is employed as Non-Technical Work Inspector in Srikakulam District Unit of A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited. At present, he is working in Regidi Mandal. Through his proceedings, dated 02.08.2008, the District Manager, the third respondent herein, transferred the petitioner to Santhakaviti Mandal on administrative grounds. The petitioner challenges the same on several grounds. It is pleaded that according to Rule 24 of the Service Rules, applicable to the Corporation, framed in G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 16.05.2008, it is only the appointing authority that is competent to issue orders of posting and transfer, whereas the third respondent does not answer the description of the said authority. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The transfer is, no doubt, on administrative grounds. However, if it is issued by an authority not vested with the power, it cannot have any force in law. The petitioner placed reliance upon Rule 24 of the Service Rules, which directs that postings and transfers of various classes of employees shall be made by appointing authority or any higher authority. It is not clear as to whether the third respondent is an appointing authority for the post of Non-Technical Work Inspector. The petitioner had already made a representation to the first respondent on 16.08.2008, pointing out his grievance. It is better that the matter is examined by the first respondent. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation made by the petitioner, dated 16.08.2008, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such orders are passed, the petitioner shall not be required to join at new place. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:22.08.2008 Note: Issue operative portion by wire at party’s costs. (B/o) kdl