IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 12793 of 2005 Between: P.Narayana rao, s/o.Kishanrao, Grade-II, Telugu Pandit, St.Arnolds High School, Ramachandrapuram, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Devine World Education Society, Arnold Bhavan, S.V.D.House, Ravindra Nagar Colony, Street No.8, Hubsiguda, Hyderabad, rep.by its President/ Provincial Superior. 2 The Correspondent, St. Arnold High School, Ramachandrapuram, Medak Dist. 3 The District Educational officer, Medak District at Sangareddy. .....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 pass order, particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the orders of the 1st respondent in procgs. No.1/Edn/05, dt.16-4-2005 as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, mala fide, violative of the Govt., Memo.NO.28140/Ps.1/98, Education Department, dated 17-9-1998 and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently set-aside the same, and grant such other relief as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.KASAJAGANMOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the action of the 1st respondent in transferring the petitioner from the 2nd respondent institution to another institution, which is under the management of the 1st respondent, established at Medarmetla, Prakasam district. 2. According to the petitioner, as per the Rules issued by the Government all schools under the same management within the districts consists one unit, and when an employee is shifted from one Unit to another i.e., from one district to the other, he will lose the seniority, and therefore, the transfer affected by the 1st respondent is illegal, unsustainable and contrary to the Rules affecting his seniority. Therefore, the petitioner sought for appropriate orders. 3. At the time of hearing, it is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that against the order of transfer, an appeal is filed under Sec.79 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982. But, however, the appellate authority – 3rd respondent did not pass any orders so far. Hence, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition in view of the reopening of the schools, and as the petitioner asked to join in the new place immediately. 4. Heard both sides and considered the material on record. 5. As the petitioner has already filed an appeal before the appellate authority – 3rd respondent against the impugned order, the same is an effective remedy and this Court cannot interfere with the same at this stage. 6. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of without considering any of the contentions on merit, with a direction to the 3rd respondent to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner, expeditiously, and if the appeal could not be disposed of, the 3rd respondent is directed to pass appropriate interim orders, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _____________________ S.Ananda Reddy, J. Dt. 16.6.2005 Note: Communicate the operative Portion by wire at party’s costs. (bo) Kvh To 1. The District Educational officer, Medak District at Sangareddy. 2. Two CCs to the G.P. for School Education, High Court, Hyderabad Two CD copies