IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE LEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 19794 of 2008 Between: K..V.Ramana Rao S/o.Raja Gopal, R/o.Sk.Beelal Pater, JAKIR Colony,Aurangabad Aurangabad District, Maharastra ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam Secunderabad 2 The Chief Personnel Officer, South Central Railway 4th floor, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad 3 The Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway Vijayawada Division, Vijayawada Krishna District 4 The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South Central Railway, Vijayawada division, Vijayawada, Krishna District 5 The Divisional Railway manager (P), South Central Railway, Nanded Division, Nanded 6 The STation Manager, South Central Railway Aurangabad, Nanded divison .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari after calling for records and quash the order inOA.No.485/2008 dated 21.8.2008 on the ﬁle of the Hon`ble Central Administrative Tribunal as the same is illegal, arbitrary, and unjust consequently set aside the transfer order of the 4th respondent No.B/P.676/I/2/IDT/AG/Vol.3 dated 27.9.2007 and consequence proceedings No.B/P.483/RTI/2008/05/18 dated 14.7.2008 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.PUSHPINDER KAUR The Court made the following : ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to quash the order in O.A.No.485 of 2008 dated 21-08-2008 on the ﬁle of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The petitioner (applicant) ﬁled the OA against the rejection of his representation dated 27-08-2007 and the consequential proceedings dated 14-07-2008 transferring him from Vijayawada Division to Nanded Division. The applicant, while working as Travelling Ticket Inspector (TTI) in Vijayawada Division, was involved in a decoy trap and thereafter he was suspended and later his suspension was revoked and he was transferred to Nanded Division on 15-02- 2006. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant approached the Tribunal by way of ﬁling O.A.No.740 of 2006 and the Tribunal by order dated 04-01-2007 dismissed the said OA. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the applicant approached this Court by way of W.P.No.1303 of 2007 and this Court dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 07-08-2007 with the following observation: “However, the petitioner is at liberty to make a representation seeking transfer to any of the adjoining divisions, within a period of two weeks from today, if so desires and on such application, the same shall be disposed of within a period of four weeks thereafter.” Subsequent to the disposal of the writ petition, the applicant joined at Nanded and consequential proceedings were issued on 27-09-2007 rejecting the representation of the applicant and the same was communicated to the applicant for information under Right to Information Act, 2005, for which the Sr.Divisional Personnel Oﬃcer, Bezawada, gave reply dated 14-07-2008. The applicant challenged the said order along with order dated 27-09-2007 before the Tribunal in O.A.No.484 of 2008. The Tribunal after perusing the orders dated 27-09-2007 and 14-07-2008 observed that the competent authority consequent on the directions of the Hon’ble High Court disposed of the representation of the applicant dated 27-08- 2007 by passing a speaking order and giving elaborate reasons as to why the transfer of the applicant from Nanded Division to some other division viz., Secunderabad Division or Guntur Division was not considered. Therefore, the Tribunal did not interfere with the discretion exercised by the competent authority in respect of the transfers. The Tribunal also did not ﬁnd any irregularity or illegality in the order dated 27-09-2007. The Tribunal further observed that so far as the order dated 14-07-2008 is concerned, the same was addressed to one Sri A.B.Avadhanulu and the subject mentioned therein is only an information under Right to Information Act, 2005. In fact, in the last paragraph of the said letter it is stated that as per the directions of the High Court of A.P. the representation dated 27-08-2007 submitted by the applicant with regard to his transfer to GNT or SC Division was examined and not considered for adjacent division. The applicant has no locus standi to challenge the order dated 14-07-2008. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the OA, however, observed that as the applicant has already joined at Nanded Division and after working for sometime, he may submit a representation to the competent authority, if he has got valid grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the competent authority has not passed any order and it is only the first respondent passed the order. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel contended that a speaking order was passed on 27-09-2007 pursuant to the order passed by the competent authority and the same was reproduced herein: “In the application of Sri K.V.Ramana Rao, it has been stated that his daughter is doing MCA and his son is doing MBA at Nellore. Obviously these children are grown up and they are not staying with Sri K.V.Ramana Rao who was headquartered at Vijayawada and hence, it is not considered as a relevant factor. Sri K.V.Ramana Rao, has also stated that if he has to go on transfer to Nanded Division himself and his family members and his wife will encounter serious problems in day to day matters with neighbours because they are Telugu speaking and Nanded being in Maharastra, Marathi is the main language there. He also represented that he will have diﬃculty in conducting ticket checking in an area where the main language spoken is Marathi. I have considered this aspect and the representation and my observations are as under: 1. Sri K.V.Ramana Rao is an educated person holding the post of a TTI. Hindi is a language well understood in area coming under Nanded Division. Hindi is our National Language and Sri K.V.Ramana Rao obviously knows this. He can use Hindi while working in Nanded Division. 2. Railway Divisions are not constituted so as to have the area of the division exclusively in one State. For example, Secunderabad Division has area of Maharastra and Karnataka apart from area of Andhra Pradesh while Guntakal Division has area of both Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. 3. There are a number of people, whose mother tongue is Telugu and who are working in diﬀerent departments including Ticket Checking branch of Nanded Division. Therefore, the case of Sri K.V.Ramana Rao, a gentleman with mother tongue as Telugu being posted to Nanded Division is not something which is unique. I don’t consider this as disadvantageous either. 4. Sri K.V.Ramana Roa was transferred from BZA Division because of a Vigilance case. A major penalty charge sheet has also been served on him. Therefore, his request to be posted either to Guntur or Secunderabad Division cannot be said to have come from an employee having good credentials. 5. While Sri K.V.Ramana Rao in his representation dated 27-08-2007 has requested to be considered for posting in Guntur or Secunderabad Division. After having considered the matter thoroughly, I am of the opinion that the representation of Sri K.V.Ramana Rao, TTI to be posted either in Secunderabad or Guntur Division and not in Nanded Division is devoid of any merit. I therefore, order that Sri K.V.Ramana Rao, TTI be instructed to carry out the transfer to Nanded Division.” Pursuant to the direction given by this Court in W.P.No.1303 of 2007 the competent authority passed a speaking order and the Tribunal has also considered it and dismissed the OA. However, the Tribunal thought it ﬁt to direct the petitioner to make a representation to the competent authority. We therefore do not ﬁnd any legal inﬁrmity in the impugned order so as to warrant interference of this court under the certiorari jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, this order does not come in the way of the competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the direction given by the Tribunal directing the petitioner to make a representation to the competent authority and to consider the same in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ________________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J 11th September, 2008 SKM