THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY W.P.NO.15263 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Petitioners herein are the applicants in O.A.No.8376 of 2009 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and they have filed the said O.A questioning the Andhra Pradesh Teachers (General Promotions and regulation of Transfers) Rules (for short, 'the Rules') framed in G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 26.1.2009, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and also to set aside Rule 15 of the Rules exempting Hyderabad District from the purview of Rule 15 and pending disposal of the writ petition they sought interim suspension of the said G.O., and permit the petitioners to elect their choice of school in Municipalities / Municipal Corporation in Ranga Reddy District basing on the points awarded to them in the counselling conducted by the respondents. The Tribunal by interim order dated 22.7.2009 directed the respondents to consider the request of the petitioners to accommodate them within the Gram Panchayat or Municipality or Municipal Corporation in which they are presently working in the left over vacancies in the ensuing transfer counselling. Aggrieved by the said interim order, this writ petition is filed to set aside the same and to declare that the order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 26.1.2009 as illegal and arbitrary. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners at length. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per Rules unless the teachers complete eight years of service, they shall not be transferred. It is stated that as per Rule 14 teachers are entitled to apply for transfer who have put in more than two years of service. It is also stated that teachers who are going to retire within two years shall not be transferred. It is further stated that who ever fails to apply and attend counselling, such persons will be allocated to the left over vacancies in the counselling without entertaining any further correspondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits as per Rule 15 the teachers shall not be posted in the Schools located in the same Gram Panchayat/ Municipality/ Municipal Corporation. But, however, Rule 15 has no application in the case of Hyderabad District. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are working in erstwhile Rajendranagar Municipality of Ranga Reddy District and the Rajendranagar Municipality has been merged in the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation with effect from 10.7.2008 by Act 13 of 2008. If that be so, they have not completed two years of stay in the merged Hyderabad Municipal Corporation as they were previously working in the Rajendranagar Mandal of Ranga Reddy District. It is further stated that exempting Rule 15 in so far as Hyderabad District is concerned is illegal and discriminatory and the order passed by the Tribunal considering the case of the petitioners in the left over vacancies is illegal and arbitrary, as the persons can be placed in the left over vacancies who have failed to apply for the transfer counselling indicating their preference of the place. We have already taken a view in W.P.No.15067 of 2009, which was also disposed of on 29.7.2009, that persons who have completed eight years of service are compulsorily transferred. In so far as the transfers of the teachers are concerned, a reading of Rule 13(b), (d) and Rule 14 clearly indicates that the teachers who have put in more than two years of service in a particular place are liable to be transferred and they are entitled to apply opting the place of choice depending upon the points secured by them as per entitlement under Rule 15. Admittedly, O.A.No.8376 of 2009 filed by the petitioners questioning the said G.O., is pending before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the merits of the case relating to the legality and validity of the said orders of the Government. So far as the admission of the writ petition is concerned, we are of the opinion that as per the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in R.Manjula and others v. Principal Secretary to Government , Revenue (Services. I) Department, Hyderabad and another[1], held that this court will not ordinarily entertain the writ petition against interlocutory orders passed by the Tribunal unless irreparable loss is caused to the applicants. Transfer is an incident in the service. It appears that the petitioners have not applied for a particular place. Therefore, as a matter of fact, the Tribunal considered their cases in the left over vacancies within the Gram Panchayat/ Municipality/ Municipal Corporation, which they are presently working. As the order passed by the Tribunal did not come within the exceptional cases as per the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court referred to above, we are not inclined to admit the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. _______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ___________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 29.7.2009 kpr [1] 2002 (3) ALD 648 (DB)