THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.21150 OF 2009 DATED 18TH FEBRUARY, 2010 BETWEEN T.Shanmugeswara Rao … Petitioner And The Regional Director of Medical and Health Services, Zone-IV, Kadapa District. And Others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.21150 OF 2009 ORDER: (GM,J) This writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 03.08.2009 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A.No.8341 of 2009, whereunder and whereby the Tribunal rejected the request of the petitioner/ applicant to transfer him to Kadapa Town and ultimately dismissed the O.A. However, it granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the official respondents to accommodate him in one of the vacancies available in Kadapa Town. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has been working as a Senior Assistant in the office of the first respondent from 30.05.2007, having been transferred from PHC, Kovaramguttapalli, Pulivendula. While so, the petitioner submitted an application on 30.06.2009 requesting transfer from the office of the first respondent to any other place in Kadapa Town, on the ground that his mother, a chronic patient, was completely bed ridden and was suffering from gangrene and diabetes. It is the case of the petitioner that the first respondent informed him orally that he would not be disturbed and on that premise, the petitioner did not attend the counseling held on 11.07.2009 for effecting transfers. However, for reasons best known to himself, the first respondent transferred the petitioner to PHC, Nandimandalam, Kadapa District, vide proceedings Rc.No.1266/C2/2009 dated 11.07.2009 while the third respondent was posted in his place, by transferring him from the office of the second respondent, vide separate proceedings of even number and date. Challenging these proceedings, the petitioner filed the O.A. before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel on either and considering the material placed before it, observed that the third respondent being an elected office bearer could not be transferred from Kadapa and the first respondent, keeping in mind the guidelines issued by the Government in this regard, transferred the third respondent from one focal post to another focal post in Kadapa Town; while the petitioner was transferred from Kadapa Town to the nearest place to Kadapa Town. Holding so, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. However, it granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the official respondents to accommodate him in one of the vacancies available in Kadapa Town. Hence, the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel on either side. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the instance of the first respondent only, the petitioner had applied for transfer although he had not completed five years of service at the present station and that under G.O.Ms.No.169 dated 17.06.2009, those employees who have completed five years of service at a particular place shall be transferred. It is his further contention that even if his application for transfer was considered, he should have been posted in Kadapa Town as per his request, considering the health condition of his aged mother. He therefore prayed that the writ petition may be allowed. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing R-1 and R-2, submitted that the petitioner himself had submitted an application for transfer and accordingly his application was duly considered and he was transferred to PHC, Nandimandalm, Kadapa District, which is about 20 K.Ms. from Kadapa Town. She further pointed out that the Tribunal has considered the matter in the proper perspective and rightly dismissed the O.A., which does not warrant interference by this Court. Admittedly, the petitioner had submitted an application for transfer from the office of the first respondent. A bare reading of the impugned order dated 11.07.2009, whereby the transfer of the petitioner was effected, shows that he appeared for the counselling conducted on 11.07.2009 by the first respondent and at his request only he was transferred from the office of the first respondent to PHC, Nandimandalam, Kapada District. It further reads that no T.T.A. and joining time was granted to the petitioner. It supports the contention that the transfer was made at the request of the petitioner only. Once the request for transfer was made, the petitioner cannot seek transfer to a particular place. It is for the authorities to consider the request of an employee as far as possible and transfer him to a suitable place. Further, the petitioner sought transfer to any other place in Kadapa Town while the authorities transferred him to PHC, Nandimandalm, Kapada District, which is said to be about 20 K.Ms. from Kadapa Town. In that view of the matter, it is not open to the petitioner to insist that the first respondent transfer him to any other place within Kadapa Town. He is bound to accept the orders of transfer and report for duty at the place where he is posted. The Tribunal considered all these aspect in the proper perspective and dismissed the O.A. We do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal, which we accordingly uphold. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to make a representation to the first respondent seeking accommodation in Kadapa Town explaining the health condition of his mother. No costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 18TH FEBRUARY, 2010. PGS/VGSR