IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.17173 OF 2011 Date:30.06.2011 Between:- M.Rajasekhara Reddy .. Petitioner And Southern Power Distribution Co. of A.P.Ltd., rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director, Tirupathi, Chittoor District and others. .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.17173 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings, dated 15.06.2011, in Memo No.DEE/O/KVL/ADM/JAO/U1/D.No.725/11 passed by respondent No.3, in so far as it relates to the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner was appointed in the erstwhile Rural Electric Supply Cooperative Society Limited (RESCO) long back and since then, working as such. Later, under Section 64(1) of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, orders were issued for winding up several such societies including the society in which he was working. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.125, dated 15.10.2004, ordering for absorption of erstwhile RESCO employees into A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Limited and Southern Power Distribution Co. of A.P. Limited. Thereafter, he was brought under the control of respondent No.1 company and from 12.08.2006 onwards, he was posted in the office of respondent No.4 as Lineman and working as such. Respondent No.5, who is working as Lineman in Operation Division, Kattubadipalem, Dagadarthy Section, Kavali Division, Nellore District from 12.08.2006 was senior to the petitioner. Respondent No.1 initiated transfer of its employees and for that purpose, respondent No.3 has issued guidelines vide memo, dated 02.06.2011. Insofar as the employees who have been brought in from RESCO, there are no separate guidelines issued to them but only seniority is being taken into consideration for effecting transfers. Since respondent No.5 is senior to him, first, respondent No.5 should have been transferred. Instead, respondent No.5 was retained by deleting his name from the list of transfers and the name of the petitioner was included for a transfer to Sambunipalem under the control of Asst. Engineer, Operation, Alluru Town. No reasons were assigned for transferring him by retaining respondent No.5. Respondent No.3 issued the impugned memo transferring him to Sambunipalem and in the said list, the name of respondent No.5 was not included. When options were sought from the employees before effecting transfers, he categorically gave option for a transfer to Atmakur Division. Without considering the same, the respondents have transferred him to some other place by deleting the name of respondent No.5. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that to accommodate respondent No.5, the present transfer order is issued without there being any request by the petitioner. 4. Heard the Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. As seen from the impugned order, dated 15.06.2011, the petitioner was posted to Sambunipalem along with three other persons, who are working in Lineman Supernumery posts. Even as per the guidelines, those who have completed more than three years of service in the present post of supernumerary, they can be transferred and such transfer should be only to another supernumerary post. So, the said guideline has been followed by the respondents. There are no mala fides attributed to the concerned authority, which effected the transfer of the petitioner. The contention that to accommodate respondent No.5, the transfer of the petitioner is effected, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that along with the petitioner, some other persons were also transferred. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner can make a representation to the respondents to post him to the place of his choice, which shall be considered in accordance with rules and guidelines for effecting transfers. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 30th June, 2011. AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.17173 OF 2011 Date:30.06.2011 AMD