IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 11695 of 2008 Between: K.Sailata, W/o. Srinivasulu, A.P.S.W.R.S./J.C./RPRP Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar district. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Institution Society, Hyderabad, Rep by its Secretary. 2 The Principal, A.P.S.W.R.S./J.C./RPRP Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar district. .....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 order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Rc.No.CO.I/Z-iii/10608/2008, dt. 1.6.2008 as illegal arbitrary and discriminative and is therefore violative of article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.SURENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondents. MR.M.V.DURGA PRASAD The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was appointed on contractual basis as a Resident Teacher in the year 1999. In the recent past, her services were regularized, vide proceedings, dated 06.10.2007. The initial appointment of the petitioner was in a place in Zone-III. In between, she came to be transferred to different places and at present, she is working in an institution, the second respondent, at Mahaboobnagar. The petitioner states that her husband is also working at Mahaboobnagar and it was only in the recent past, she was transferred to that place. It is urged that the transfer to Pedapavani in Zone-III is untenable in law, inasmuch as the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 (for short ‘the Presidential Order’) does not apply to the services in the first respondent institution. Certain other grounds are also urged. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner was continuing as a contractual employee till 06.10.2007. In pursuance of the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.59 Social Welfare (RS-I) Department, dated 10.08.2007, the contractual employees in the first respondent institution were regularized, subject to certain conditions. There was a categorical mention that the Presidential Order shall be implemented while regularizing the services of contractual employees. It was in that context that the petitioner came to be regularized as a Resident Teacher in Zone-III. Since the regularization took place during the middle of the academic year, the petitioner was continued at the place where she was working before the academic year 2008-2009 commenced. The first respondent has undertaken the transfers of employees all over the State, duly holding counselling for that purpose. Except pleading personal hardship, the petitioner is not able to point out any legal infirmity in the order of transfer. It hardly needs any mention that the transfer is an incidence of service and no employee had any vested right to insist that he or she must be continued or posted at a particular place. At any rate, the petitioner cannot take any exception to her transfer to the Zone in which her services have been regularized. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order of transfer. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:10.06.2008. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}