THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.16996 OF 2011 Dated: 21.07.2011 Between: D.Janardhana Reddy ..... Petitioner AND Southern Power Distribution Co. of A.P. Limited, represented by its Chairman and Managing Director and 3 others ..... Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.16996 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the official respondents more particularly, the 2nd respondent, in not considering the claims of the petitioner for transfer to Sub-Division Office, Atmakur or Division Office, Atmakur and accommodating the 4th respondent at ERO Atmakur by duly setting aside the impugned Memo, dated 15.06.2011, issued by the 2nd respondent in so far as posting the 4th respondent at ERO/Atmakur and posting the petitioner at S-ERO/Podalakur of ERO Atmakur, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to transfer the petitioner to Sub-Division Office, Atmakur or Division Office, Atmakur duly taking into account his six years of service in the present post/station/cadre as on or before 22.06.2011 and as per the transfer guidelines issued by the 2nd respondent. 2. The averments, in brief, stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner was initially appointed in the erstwhile Rural Electric Supply Cooperative Society Limited (RESCO) in the year 1987 and since then he was working as such. Thereafter, under Section 64(1) of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 orders were issued for winding up several societies of RESCO including the society in which the petitioner was working. The Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 15.10.2004 ordering for absorption of erstwhile RESCO employees into A.P.Central Power Distribution Company Limited and Southern Power Distribution Co. of A.P. Limited. The petitioner was brought under the control of the 1st respondent company and from 01.01.2005 onwards, he was posted in the office of Electricity Revenue, Office, A.P.S.P.D.C.L., Atmakur, Nellore District. The 4th respondent was working as U.D.C. in Operation Sub-Division, A.P.S.P.D.C.L., Atmakur, Nellore District from the very same day of the working of the petitioner i.e., from 01.01.2005 and he is senior to him in service. Subsequently, the 1st respondent initiated transfer of its employees and for that purpose the 2nd respondent issued transfer guidelines vide memo, dated 06.06.2011. In so far as employees who have been brought in from RESCO are concerned, there are no separate guidelines issued, but only seniority has to be followed. Since the 4th respondent is senior to the petitioner, he should have been transferred and in his place, the petitioner has to be posted. If transfers have to be effected, the 4th respondent will have to be transferred first. Instead of transferring the 4th respondent, he has been retained at the same station by transferring to ERO Office, which is in the same premises as that of Operation Sub Division’s Office. The transfer of personnel within the same office does not attract the provisions of transfer guidelines. Without transferring the 4th respondent, the 2nd respondent herein, by impugned memo dated 15.06.2011 transferred the petitioner and posted him to office of Assistant Accounts Officer/Sub ERO, Podalakur. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that to accommodate the 4th respondent, who is senior to the petitioner, in the same place, the petitioner was transferred; and that though the petitioner has opted two places of his choice to be transferred, the same was not considered and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned memo. 4. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 5. There cannot be dispute that transfer is one of the incidents of service, and an employee cannot claim the same as a matter of right. Moreover, this Court ordinarily would not interfere with the transfer orders, unless mala fides are attributed against the transferring authority or the transferring authority has no jurisdiction or the transfer is contrary to the Rules. The case of the petitioner does not fall under any one of the three categories stated above. Hence, the question of setting aside the impugned memo does not arise. 6. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, this order will not preclude the petitioner in making a representation to the concerned authority to transfer him to any one of the two places of his choice, subject to availability of vacancies. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU, J Dated: 21st July, 2011 Ivd HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.16996 OF 2011 21st July, 2011 Ivd