THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.7370 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 18.03.2010 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in dismissing O.A.No.12616 of 2009, filed by the petitioner for setting aside the proceedings dated 16.07.2009 issued by the first respondent transferring him from Samarlakota Municipality to Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. 2. The petitioner states that while he was working as Assistant Engineer, the first respondent vide proceedings dated 16.07.2009 transferred him from Samarlakota Municipality to Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, based on the complaint given by the 4th respondent-Ex-MLA of Peddapuram Constituency, at whose recommendation earlier, he was ordered to act as FAC Commissioner of Samarlakota Municipality, but after the State General Elections, 2009, due to political rivalry, the 4th respondent made false complaints against him. When he challenged the said transfer order by filing O.A.No.8783 of 2009, the Tribunal dismissed the same on 12.01.2009 holding that after the approval of the competent authority, the said transfer was effected. Aggrieved by the same, he filed W.P.No.25169 of 2009, which was dismissed as withdrawn granting liberty to him to file fresh O.A. Accordingly, he filed O.A.No.12616 of 2009, which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order impugned. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare for Respondents 1 and 3 and the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipalities appearing for Respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that though the 4th respondent earlier addressed a letter to the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration in the month of September, 2007 for placing the petitioner as FAC Commissioner of Samarlakota Municipality, thereafter in the month of May, 2009, he made false complaints against him due to political rivalry and thereafter, the transfer was effected without assigning any reasons and it is a colourable exercise of power on the part of the first respondent. He also contended that the transfer order is contrary to the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.169, dated 17.06.2009. 5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader contended that the transfer of the petitioner was effected on administrative ground, viz, charges were framed against the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.1139 dated 11.08.2009 for not submitting the adjustment bills to a tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. He further contended that certain allegations of irregularities and misappropriation of funds are levelled against the petitioner and if he is allowed to continue in Samarlakota Municipality, it will lead to several other financial irregularities and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the O.A., by the order impugned, which need not be interfered with by this Court. 6. Now, the point for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal suffers from any illegalities or infirmities warranting interference by this Court. 7. We have perused the material on record. The order of transfer dated 16.07.2009 shows that with the permission of the first respondent, the third respondent effected transfers in the cadre of Municipal Assistant Executive Engineer/Municipal Assistant Engineer/Assistant Executive Engineer/Assistant Engineer as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.169 dated 17.06.2009 and on administrative grounds in public interest and accordingly, the petitioner was transferred from Samarlakota Municipality to Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. 8. The law is well settled that the transfer is an incidence of service and no employee can claim any right to be transferred to a particular place. The scope of interference in the order of transfer is very narrow and limited. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision, the same cannot be interfered with. Even assuming that the order of transfer of the petitioner was affected at the instance of the 4th respondent- Ex-MLA of Peddapuram Constituency, a perusal of the said order clearly shows that the transfer was effected on purely administrative grounds and therefore, this Court cannot interdict the same. The Tribunal has gone through the material on record, considered the various judgments of the Apex Court relied on by the petitioner and rightly passed the order impugned. Therefore, we do not find any infirmities in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:12.04.2010. sj