IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.17906 of 2008 Between: K. Ananda Reddy S/o. K. RAmachandra Reddy Tirupati Rural, Tirupati. R/o.19-12-246, Near Padmavathi High School, Bairagi Patteda, Tirupati, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, Kurnool. 2 The Deputy Registrar, Registration and Stamps, Balaji Registration District, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (R&S) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 The Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, N.B.K. Complex, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 5 S. Vidya Sagar Reddy S/o. S. Sidda Reddy (Now under orders of Transfer to Joint-II Incharge Sub Registrar, District Registrar Office, Anantapur, Anantapur 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 may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to O.A.No.4360 of 2008, dated 11.08.2008 on the file of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and declare the same as void abinitio, null and void and non est in the eye of law, by holding that the petitioner is entitled to be continued as Sub-Registrar, Grade-II, Tirupati Rural as per Proceedings No.A/615/2008- 3, dated 16.06.2008 issued by the 1st respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.SURYA KARAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : Sri G.Ramagopal The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.17906 of 2008 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 11.08.2008 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.460 of 2008 and consequently to hold that the petitioner is entitled to be continued as Sub-Registrar, Grade-II at Tirupati Rural, as per proceedings No. A/615/2008-3, dated 16.06.2008 issued by the 1st respondent. Brief facts are that the petitioner, while working as Sub-Registrar at Tirupati Rural, was placed under suspension by proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 22.11.2007 on the ground of certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by him while he was working at Allagadda in Kurnool District. Later, he was reinstated into service by proceedings dated 01.12.2007 and posted in the office of the District Registrar (M.V. & Audit), Chittoor. Thereafter, the 5th respondent, who was working as Senior Assistant in the office of the 4th respondent, was posted to work as in charge Sub-Registrar at Tirupati Rural, and accordingly he joined on 11.12.2007. However, on the request made by the petitioner, the 1st respondent, by proceedings dated 16.06.2008, transferred him from Chittoor to Tirupati Rural, by transferring the 5th respondent to Anantapur. The 5th respondent challenged the said order before the Tribunal contending that the said transfer is contrary to the guidelines issued by the 4th respondent vide proceedings dated E3/8100/2008, dated 31.05.2008. The Tribunal, by order dated 11.08.2008, allowed the O.A., setting aside the order of the 1st respondent dated 16.06.2008. Challenging the same, petitioner filed this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri T. Suryakaran Reddy, vehemently argued that the petitioner was transferred to Tirupati Rural, by proceedings dated 16.06.2008, on administrative grounds, and the 5th respondent, who is a senior assistant, was posted only as in charge Sub- Registrar consequent upon the suspension of the petitioner and he was not promoted on regular basis and therefore, he cannot challenge the transfer of the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel, Sri E. Manohar, representing Sri G. Ramagopal, learned counsel for the 5th respondent, contended that the petitioner was not transferred on administrative grounds, but on request. He further contended that the 5th respondent is in the list of approved panel for the year 2007- 08 of Sub-Registrar Grade-II and as per the guidelines issued by the 4th respondent, dated 31.05.2008, the 5th respondent ought not to have been disturbed from Tirupati Rural. In order to substantiate his contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi v. U.P.Jal Nigam and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Damodar Prasad Pandey . We have considered the contentions of both the counsel and perused the material on record. Time and again, this Court as well as the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that transfer is an incidence of service and no employee can claim any right to be transferred to a particular place. The only area of interference is where the order of transfer is in violation of any prescribed norms of principles governing the transfer. The gist of the transfer policy is only to ensure that the employees are not indiscriminately transferred with frequent interference and to inject an element of objectivity into the process. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the instructions issued by the 4th respondent regarding transfers. The relevant portion of the said instructions reads as under: “Employees not to be transferred: 1) a) The cut off date to calculate completion of two years of service in a particular place to consider the transfer is 30.06.2008. b) Employees with less than two years of service in the present place of working as on 30.06.2008 should not be transferred. The candidates who were approved in the panel for the year 2007-08 of Sub-Registrar Grade-II and working as in charge Sub-Registrars shall not be disturbed and the said stations are not to be treated as vacant. From the above instructions, it is clear that the employees who have not completed two years of service as on 30.06.2008 should not be transferred. It was the stand of the official respondents in the Tribunal that the consequent to his reinstatement and posting at Chittoor, petitioner requested the Government to post him at Tirupati Rural and pursuant to the instructions issued by the 4th respondent on 03.06.2008, he was posted at Tirupati Rural and therefore, there is no violation of the guidelines framed for transfer. However, a perusal of the order of the 4th respondent dated 03.06.2008 shows that the 1st respondent was requested to examine the case of the petitioner and take necessary action as per rules, Government Orders and instructions in force during general transfers. So, the said order does not indicate that the petitioner should be posted disturbing the 5th respondent. The 1st respondent, by misconception of the order, dated 03.06.2008, disturbed the 5th respondent by posting the petitioner in his place. When admittedly, the 5th respondent was approved in the panel of Sub-Registrar for the year 2007-08 and was posted as in charge at Tirupati Rural, he ought not to have been disturbed, in the light of the guidelines in force. In this regard, the Supreme Court, in the case of Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi (1 supra) observed that transfer of officers is required to be effected on the basis of set norms or guidelines and the power of transferring an officer cannot be wielded arbitrarily, mala fide or an exercise against efficient and independent officer. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (2 supra) it was observed that in the absence of arbitrariness, mala fide or violation of any operative guidelines or rules, the Court’s inference with the order of transfer is not called for. The said judgments squarely apply to the facts of the case. In the instant case, apparently, the respondents have not adhered to the guidelines framed for transfer. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal rightly set aside the transfer order dated 16.08.2008. We do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal, warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to make a representation to the authority concerned putting forth his grievance and the authority concerned shall pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ (Justice Ghulam Mohammed) _________________ (Justice C.V.Ramulu) 19th August 2008 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 22.08.2008 (B/o) SH