IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26164 of 2008 Between: K. Indrasena ..... PETITIONER AND The Inspector General (Southern Sector), CISF, South Zone, Head Quarters, D-Block, Rajaji Bhavan, Besantnagar, Chennai and 2 others. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.SHIVA KUMAR Standing Counsel for the Respondent: Ms.C.VANI REDDY The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.26164 of 2008 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, this writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties. 2. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 17-11-2008 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Crime and Intelligence Wing of Ramagundam area to Cochin Port Trust. The petitioner assailed this order on various grounds. 3. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the administrative guidelines governing the transfers of the employees of the respondents suggest that a person shall not ordinarily be transferred till he completes three years of service. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner’s wife is working as a teacher and that the petitioner’s transfer to Cochin, a far away place, would cause dislocation of his family life. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that while retaining the persons who had longer standing, the petitioner was chosen for transfer, which constitutes discrimination. 4. In the counter affidavit, filed by the respondents, it is inter alia stated that after reassessment of the need following a joint resurvey conducted by a Board constituted for this purpose, it was recommended to reduce the strength of CISF Unit of Singareni Collieries Company Limited from 1564 to 880 and due to this administrative exigency, the surplus personnel were redeployed to various stations. 5. As regards discrimination, the respondents denied retention of persons who have put in longer standing than the petitioner’s. At the hearing, learned standing counsel for the respondents placed before me a letter dated 19-03-2009, addressed to her, by Vice Commandant, wherein, it is mentioned that all the seniors to the petitioner were transferred vide proceedings dated 02- 03-2009. 6. The law is well settled that transfer is an incidence of service. The employer has got absolute discretion to transfer the employees to meet administrative exigencies. Except in cases of proven mala fides, this Court seldom interferes with such transfers. The plea of dislocation of domestic life has no legal sanctity and the same cannot be the sole determining factor by the Courts while considering the validity of transfer orders. Even the administrative instructions, which are meant for internal guidance and are not legally enforceable, do not place absolute bar on the transfer of a person either before completion of three years or to be posted away from his place, if the spouse is also an employee if there is imperative need for transferring an employee. 7. In the instant case, I have no reason not to accept the plea of the respondents that the administrative exigencies impelled the respondents to shift the petitioner from the present place of working to a different place. At any rate, even according to the petitioner, he is entitled to be continued for a period of three years at the same place. Admittedly, the petitioner is working from the year 2006 and the three years period will expire before the end of 2009. 8. Under these circumstances, I do not find any reason to restrain the respondents from giving effect to the transfer order passed by the respondents. 9. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s children are studying in the schools and he may be given reasonable time to leave the station and report to duty at the transfered place. Having regard to this request, the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner till 31-05-2009 at he present station. 10. Subject to the aforementioned direction, the writ petition is dismissed. 11. As a sequel to dismissal of writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.34248 of 2008 is dismissed and W.V.M.P.No.375 of 2009 is disposed of as infructuous. No costs. _______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J KVR