THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 17264 of 2011 ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the statement of merit list adding five points towards office bearer of the recognized association in favour of the fourth respondent and showing his name at serial no.1 with 44 points in the transfers of Junior Lecturers in the first respondent society, as illegal and without jurisdiction, and consequently direct the respondents to give the first preference to the petitioner as senior most employee in Junior Lecturer (Telugu) with highest 44 points for counseling and transfer him to his place of choice i.e. Ibrahimpatnam. 2. The averments, in brief, stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner was appointed as PGT (Telugu) on 26.10.1990 in first respondent society. Thereafter, he was promoted as Junior Lecturer (Telugu) on 1.7.1996. He joined in Madanapur on 2.5.2006 and completed five years of service and therefore is under compulsory transfer as per the Transfer Rules of the first respondent. He is also the Associate President of Social Welfare Residential Teachers and Employees’ Union, which is recognized in the respondent university. He exercised options against three places i.e. Ibrahimpatnam, Chilkur and Shaikpet in the order of preference. The fourth respondent is also under compulsory transfer having completed five years of service at Hathnoora and he was also working as Vice President of Unrecognised Association Regn. No.833. As per the Rules, unless a Teacher is an office bearer of a recognized union of the society, he is not entitled to any entitlement points. The Government issued the Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff and Principals Transfers (Regulation of Transfer) Rules, 2011 (for short, ‘the Rules, 2011’) and directed first respondent to effect transfers according to said Rules. The petitioner submitted application on 04.06.2011. As per Rules, the petitioner has to stand at sl.no.1, but, the respondents published merit list on 14.6.2011 showing his name at sl.no.2 while showing name of fourth respondent at sl.no.1. Both of them were given 44 points having allotted five points for being office bearers of recognized associations. The fourth has not submitted any application mentioning himself as office bearer of any union as certified by the Principal of the College as per the Rules, 2011. So, adding five points to him is contrary to Rules and an act of favourtism. The counseling to be held on 14.6.2011 was postponed until further orders and the respondents fixed to conduct counseling for remaining transfers including Junior Lecturer (Telugu) Zone-VI on 22.6.2011. In this regard, the petitioner made a representation on 20.06.2011 to the respondents, but as they are not applying their mind, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 in their counter affidavit admitted fact of petitioner and the fourth respondent are liable for transfer on compulsory grounds and they exercised the options. It is further stated that the fourth respondent is a Treasurer of Social Welfare Residential Junior Lecturers & P.Ds. Association, Andhra Pradesh, which is recognized union of the society and hence he is eligible for five entitlement points. Both the petitioner and the fourth respondent were awarded five entitlement points as per the letters addressed by the respective Associations to the first respondent, and since both of them secured 44 points, based on the date of joining at the present station, the fourth respondent was placed at sl.no.1. Though the Principal has not specifically certified that the fourth respondent was an office bearer of any association, the fact is that the applicant mentioned as ‘yes’ against the column in the application, which pertains to ‘whether the applicant is the Principal Office bearer of the Association listed in Joint Staff Council and if so, details’. The petitioner has not raised any objection during the process of counseling as to the entitlement points awarded to the fourth respondent for being an office bearer of a recognized union, and in fact, the petitioner exercised his option during counseling and submitted consent letter dated 14.6.2011 opting for Hathnoora Junior College. Therefore, as per Rules only, the transfers were effected and they prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 4. The fourth respondent also filed his counter affidavit denying the averments in the petition and stating as follows: The prayer sought for is misconceived and baseless. The fourth respondent is office bearer of Social Welfare Residential Junior Lecturers and P.Ds. Association, Andhra Pradesh, which is a recognized association by the first petitioner society. Taking into his eligibility, the transfer is effected and there is no irregularity in the transfer. The petitioner, having made a representation on 20.06.2011, filed the Writ Petition without waiting for its consideration by the authorities. In support of the claim of the petitioner that he is working as Organising Secretary, no document is filed and so the claim is baseless. The fourth respondent put in five years ten months of service in the station whereas the petitioner put in five years 12 days of service. The petitioner cannot have any right to claim for a particular place on the premise that he is senior most and in fact, the seniority in the organization has nothing to do with the transfer policy and the station seniority, is the criterion for preparing the eligible candidates for transfer in terms of the transfer policy. The letter communicated by the Association is authenticated and it alone is taken into consideration for awarding entitlement points. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the fourth respondent has not filed any document before the due date for submission of applications for transfer to show that his association was recognized by the second respondent; that the fourth respondent was a member of unrecognized association and that which post he is holding, has not been specifically mentioned; that the application of the petitioner has not been certified by the Principal to the effect that his association was recognized by the second respondent; that, when the petitioner and the fourth respondent stand on the same points, seniority has to be taken into consideration as per Rule 11 of the Rules, 2011, for the purpose of giving first preference to the petitioner to opt for a place of his choice and therefore the impugned order is liable to be se aside. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 contended that though the fourth respondent submitted the application for transfer, he only produced letter given by the association to show that he was an office bearer, on the next day and, that was taken into consideration; that the association of the fourth respondent in which he is an office bearer, is recognized by the society; that the petitioner himself had given a consent letter on 14.6.2011 to transfer him to Hatnoora in Medak District, and that letter of consent is accepted by the respondents 2 and 3, and therefore, transfer order needs no interference by this Court. 7. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent contended that it is specifically stated that the association, in which the fourth respondent us shown as an office bearer, is a recognized union and the same has not been denied or disputed; that the transfer order is completely in accordance with the Rules governing the service conditions of the petitioner, and therefore there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 8. There cannot be any dispute that transfer of an employee is one of the incidents of service. It is also not in dispute that the power to transfer has to be exercised according to rules, bona fidely and for administrative exigencies. The employee is liable to be transferred to any place. Unless the transfer order is vitiated by mala fides or contrary to the rules or the person who passed the order of transfer has no jurisdiction, ordinarily, this court would not interfere with the same. If the case of the petitioner falls under any one of the above grounds, then only interference by this court is warranted. 9. It is not in dispute before this Court that the Rules, 2011 are the Rules governing the transfers of the petitioner and the fourth respondent. In so far as the transfers of teaching and non-teaching staff are concerned, the last date for receipt of the applications was 5.6.2011. As per Rule 12 of the Rules, 2011, five entitlement points will be allotted to five recognized associations listed in the Joint Staff Council for President (1 No.), General Secretary (1 No.), Associate President (3 Nos.), Treasurer (1 No.) and Organising Secretary (3 Nos.). It is the case of the petitioner that he was the President of one of the associations and therefore the respondent society has given five entitlement points. In so far as fourth respondent is concerned, he has not appended any certificate to the application to show as to whether the association in which he is an office bearer, is recognized or not. But, as seen from the counter allegations of the respondents 2 and 3, it is clear that on the next day, the fourth respondent submitted a letter to show that he was the Treasurer of an association recognized by the respondents 2 and 3. It is not in dispute that in the application of the fourth respondent, it is clearly mentioned that he was an office bearer of a recognized association. No doubt, the concerned Principal has not certified to the effect that the fourth respondent was an office bearer of recognized association so as to get weightage of points. But, the fact remains that the association of fourth respondent is recognized by the Society in view of the fact that it is specifically stated by the fourth respondent in the counter affidavit. The said averment has not been denied or disputed by the petitioner by filing reply affidavit. When the application is submitted within time, but not furnishing the certificate given by an association does not amount to deviation from the format prescribed under the Rules. 10. Rule 11 (B) (ii) of the Rules, 2011 prescribes that when more than one employee opts for a particular place, preference will be given to the senior most employee subject to the employee not having charges pending against him/her. This Rules refers that preference will be given to the senior most employee. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as PGT (Telugu) on 26.10.1990. But, the said Rule cannot be taken into consideration because the petitioner has not given any particulars as to when the fourth respondent joined in the School. In any view of the matter, the petitioner has given a consent letter to the respondent to post him at Hatnoora, Medak District by virtue of his letter dated 14.6.2011. When he himself gave the consent letter, now he cannot turn around and say that posting of the fourth respondent to Ibrahimpatnam is illegal. Therefore, he is bound by the consent letter given by him with regard to his posting. When he himself opted for Hathnoora, Medak District, the transfer order cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to the transfer policy. 11. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 18.07.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 17264 of 2011 18.07.2011