IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6160 of 2008 Between: Ch. Maisaiah, S/o. Kanakaiah, Sudimalla, R/o. Sudimalla Village, Illendu Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Officer on Special Duty, A.P. Tribal Welfare Junior College (G),Sudimalla, Illendu Mandal, Khammam District. 2 The Joint Secretary, Gurukulam, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 3 The Member Secretary, Gurukulam, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.A1/Transfer/2007-08, dated 10.03.2008 of the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and contrary to the well established judicial precedents and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.BRAHMAIAH CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondents.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is employed as Night Watchman in the Andhra Pradesh Tribal Welfare Residential Junior College, at Sudimalla. Ever since 1984, he is working at that place. He was transferred to the Junior College at Kinnerasani Dam in the year 2007. Making his grievance out of the order of transfer, the petitioner submitted a representation to the third respondent. Vide proceedings, dated 29.10.2007, the third respondent kept the order of transfer in abeyance. Through memo, dated 03.03.2008, the third respondent had withdrawn his order, dated 29.10.2007, and directed that the order of transfer passed in respect of the petitioner be enforced. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. It hardly needs a mention that transfer is an incidence of service. The petitioner remained at the same station almost for a decade. The respondents thought of shifting him to a different place in the same district. Whatever may have the circumstances, under which, the third respondent kept the order of transfer in abeyance, a perusal of the memo, dated 03.03.2008, discloses that several complaints as regards the functioning of the petitioner at Sudimalla were received through none other than the local MLA. The third respondent cannot remain oblivious of such developments. Mere order of transfer of the petitioner to a different place cannot be treated as punishment. Further, it was not effected on the employee during the academic year. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the impugned order. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:25.03.2008 sj ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2CCs to the Government Pleader for Social Welfare, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 2. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}