HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23749 of 2009 Date : 06.11.2009 Between : P.R.R.Prasad. …..Petitioner And The APSRTC, rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managingi Director, Hyderabad & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23749 of 2009 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order of transfer, dated 27th October 2009, issued in Proceedings No.PM1/813 (9)/09-PO-II, by which, he was transferred from Visakhapatnam to Srikakulam. 2. The petitioner is working as a Lab Technician in the respondent-APSRTC. The impugned order of transfer is questioned mainly on the ground that the same is passed, on the request made by one G.Bhavani Shankar, Lab Assistant, working in Srikakulam, seeking transfer to Visakhapatnam. It is further submitted that though the 3rd respondent alone is the competent authority to transfer, the impugned order is passed by an incompetent authority, and on that ground also, the petitioner seeks invalidation of the impugned order of transfer. 3. On instructions, it is submitted by Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation, that the petitioner has worked at Visakhapatnam for a number of years and that he was lastly transferred to Visakhapatnam from Vizianagaram in the year 2005. It is also stated that one Sri G.Bhavani Shankar is working for the last three years at Srikakulam and he also requested for transfer. Merely because a request is made by other person, the same by itself, is not a ground to interfere with the impugned order of transfer. When a request is made, it is always open for the employer to consider such request while transferring the persons who are posted at a particular place for a long period. In this case, as it is stated that the petitioner was posted at Visakhapatnam in the year 2005, as such, merely because the request of other person by name G.Bhavani Shankar is considered, by itself, is no ground to interfere with the impugned order. 4. With regard to the competency to pass the order of transfer, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation that for the rank of Lab Technicians, the Assistant Medical Officer is the appointing authority and the impugned order is passed with the approval of the competent authority. Even a perusal of the order dated 27th October 2009 indicates that the said order is passed by the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager with the approval of the competent authority. As such, I do not find any merit in this writ petition so as to interfere with the order impugned in the writ petition. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the wife of the petitioner is working at Visakhapatnam and their children are also studying at Visakhapatnam. If he files his representation in this regard, it is open for the respondents to consider the same, but on the grounds as raised by the petitioner, the impugned order of transfer cannot be interfered with in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 6th November 2009 ajr