THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR W.P.No.5318 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The petitioner herein filed O.A.No.295 of 2010 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, questioning the transfer and relieving orders, dated 15.03.2010 and 22.03.2010 respectively. He states that he was transferred seven times during the period from 2000 to 2010. His grievance is that the respondents are transferring him from one place to another without transferring the longstanding employees. The Tribunal having considered the material on record disposed of the O.A., directing the petitioner to join at the place of his transfer and make a representation, if he is so advised and on receipt of such representation, the respondents shall dispose of the same within one month from the date of the representation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that because of frequent transfers from one place to another, the petitioner cannot concentrate on his work. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have directed the petitioner to join at his transferred place. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the two posts of News Reader-cum-Translator in All India Radio, Vijayawada were kept vacant for some time and therefore, the transfer of the petitioner was effected and it was purely on administrative grounds. 5. 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. In the instant case, the respondents effected transfer of the petitioner on administrative exigencies at Vijayawada, wherein two posts of News Reader-cum-Translator were kept vacant. The Tribunal after considering all the aspects gave liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents. But, without making any representation, he filed the present writ petition. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date:07.03.2011 sj