THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO. 13225 of 2010 14-06-2010 BETWEEN; S.Bhagya Lakshmi ...Petitioner vs. The Chief General Manager A.P. Telecom, Hyderabad and another ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO.13225 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) Heard Smt. D.Satyavathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner an Sri B.Devanand, the learned counsel for the respondent. It requires to be noticed that the petitioner, an employee of the BSNL has failed to implead the BSNL as a respondent and is rest content t implead the Chief General Manager, A.P. Telecom, Door Sanchar Bhavan Abids, Hyderabad, as the 1st respondent. The writ petition is directed against the order of the learned Centra Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Hyderabad dated 29-04-2010 dismissin Transfer Application No.33 of 2010. The petitioner initially file W.P.No.22400 of 2008 before this Court assailing an order dated 13-08 2008 transferring her, a Sub-Divisional Engineer (Telecom), from Hyderabad to Nalgonda. The petitioner filed a writ petition since the BSN was not a notified department/institution under the provisions of Section 1 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, for an adjudication by the CAT After issuance of an appropriate notification consecrating adjudicator jurisdiction on the CAT in respect of BSNL employees, the writ petitio was transferred to the CAT and numbered as TA 33 of 2010. The principal challenge by the petitioner to the order of transfer is tha the transfer is inconsistent with clause 6 (g) of the Transfer policy, whic enjoins that as far as possible and within the constraints of administrativ feasibility, a request for posting of husband and wife at the same statio shall be considered if the employee’s spouse is serving in Central/Stat Government or a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU). Pleading that he husband is working with a Central Government Undertaking (Mishra Dhat Nigam Limited) the petitioner assailed the order of transfer. In a counter-affidavit by the 1st respondent herein, it was pleaded tha the petitioner was working in Hyderabad for more than 30 years, durin which period she was promoted as Junior Telecom Officer and Sub Divisional Engineer and on both occasions she was retained a Hyderabad giving due consideration to the fact that her spouse wa working here. It was further pleaded that it is not possible to retain th petitioner in Hyderabad in the interest of service and strict implementatio of the transfer policy, in view of the fact that other officials who ha completed their tenure at unpopular stations are also required to b accommodated at Hyderabad. The learned Tribunal while acceding to the plea of the respondent held that transfer is a mere incident of service as well a o condition of it and that the transfer of the petitioner is neither illegal no malicious, declined to grant relief and dismissed T.A.No.33 of 2010. It requires to be noticed that clause 6(g) occurs in a raft of polic guidelines issued by the BSNL for internal guidance and is not a statutor Rule that enjoins an obligation never to affect a transfer as would brin about a separation between the spouses. Public interest requires th employer to consider a complex variety of administrative factors, so as t achieve a harmony in the mosaic of such complex factors. Transfer of a employee essentially and primarily is within the discretion of the employe In the absence of any jurisdictional infirmity or violation of statutory rules which prohibit transfer, no interference under Article 226 of the Constitutio or by the learned Tribunal in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 14 o the Administrative Tribunals Act,1985, is called for. At any rate, by th order impugned in the Transfer Application No.33 of 2010 the petitione was merely transferred from Hyderabad to Nalgonda, an adjoining district On application of the maxim de minimis non curat lex as well, this cou is not inclined to grant any relief. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the threshold. No order a to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 14th JUNE 2010. TSNR