IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 20291 of 2008 Between: N.Ramakrishnaiah S/o.Siddaiah Mandal Parishad Development Officer bhupalapalli, Warangal District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh , rep.by the Secretary panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat,Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Himayathnagar,Hyderabad 3 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Warangal, Warangal District 4 The Chairman, Zilla Parishad, Warangal, Warangal District .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 order or directions more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus: a. To call for the records pertaining to the Transfer Proceedings Rc.No.B1/2011/2007 dated 10.7.2007 the consequential Posting Proceedings Rc.No.B1/686/2007 dated 10.7.2008 issued by the Respondent No.3 and the Judgment dated 8.9.2008 in Rev.M.A.No.2160 of 2008 in OA.No.4978 of 2007 held by the Hon`ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and set them aside: b. To continue the petitioner at the present place of working i.e,. Bhulapalapalli, Warangal District with all consequential beneﬁts and attendatn beneﬁts c. To award costs by holding the action of the respondents are bad in law and without jurisdiction illegal, irrational ,arbitrary, discriminatory, without jurisdiction violative of the Statutory Rules and violative of the Article, 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.NAGENDRA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Writ Petition No.20291 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The petitioner, in eﬀect, seeks a direction to the oﬃcial respondents to continue him at the present place of working i.e. Bhupalapalli, Warangal district, with all consequential and attendant benefits. 2. The details relevant for deciding this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Mandal Parishad Development Oﬃcer on 01-10-1996 and posted at Mangapet, Warangal District. He was transferred to Bhupalapalli on 07-06- 2005 and ultimately, he was transferred to Kothaguda vide proceedings dated 10-07-2007 which was impugned in O.A.No.4978 of 2007. The Tribunal dismissed O.A.No.4978 of 2007 as infructuous on the representation of the counsel appearing before the petitioner. Thereafter, the authority concerned transferred the petitioner to the same place vide proceedings dated 19-07-2008 which was challenged in O.A.No.6452 of 2008 and the same was dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner ﬁled writ petition being W.P.No.17910 of 2008 and this court disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to ﬁle review application and directed the Tribunal to dispose of the same on merits, without reference to the fact that O.A.No.6452 of 2008 was dismissed. The Tribunal, while observing that there is no error apparent on the face of the record, dismissed the review application. Hence, this writ petition is filed by the applicant. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner is challenging the order of transfer on the ground that it is contrary to the relevant GOs. The petitioner had initially challenged the order of transfer and subsequently instructed his counsel to represent that the cause in the O.A.No.4978 of 2007 does not survive, and therefore the O.A. was dismissed as infructuous. The petitioner wants to be retained at Bhupalapalli, Warangal district, as he is going to retire on attaining the age of superannuation. It is settled law that the transfer is an incidence of service and an employee cannot claim any right to be retained at the place of his choice. The courts would not normally interfere with the transfer order except when the transfer is tainted with malaﬁdes. An employee is liable to be transferred to any place by the authority depending upon the administrative exigency and it is the bounden duty of an employee to obey the transfer order and in the circumstances, it cannot be said that the fundamental right of the petitioner is infringed and, the impugned order does not call for any interference in exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J. 17-09-2008 bsc