HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY WRIT PETITION No:10034 OF 2007 Dated: 04.06.2007 Between: B. Pandarinath ..Petitioner And 1. The District Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy and others. ..Respondents. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY WRIT PETITION No:10034 OF 2007 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the order, dated 16.4.2007 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, dismissing the O.A.No.1444 of 2007. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Panchayat Secretary vide proceedings dated 28.12.2001 by the 1st respondent and subsequently, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.105 Revenue (Village Administration I (1)) Department, dated 31.1.2007, he was appointed as Village Revenue Officer by way of transfer from the control of Mandal Parishad Development Officers in PR & RD Department to exclusive control of Tahsildars in Revenue Department vide Proceedings No.A4/1184/2007, dated 7.2.2007 issued by the 1st respondent and he joined duty on 8.2.2007. While so, within 28 days thereafter, the 1st respondent issued impugned proceedings transferring the petitioner from the said place to village of Huigera of Raikode Mandal and also kept him as in charge of other three villages, contrary to the guidelines of the said G.O. and it was done due to political interference. Questioning the said proceedings, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1444 of 2007. In the said O.A., the respondents filed counter-affidavit contending that certain villages were identified as Headquarters and in view of the same, the Mandal Revenue Officer made certain proposals to change the postings of the Village Revenue Officers and that the same is recommended by the Revenue Divisional Officer in his letter dated 14.2.2007 and accordingly, the applicant was shifted from Raikode to Hulgera village and that there is no malafide intention in the said transfer order. The Tribunal having observed that the transfer of the applicant is made within the Mandal and no malifides can be attributed to the respondents, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. We have perused the order impugned as well as G.O.Ms.No.105. As seen from the record, it is obvious that subsequent to the orders of appointment of the petitioner, certain Headquarters/villages are identified and in exigency, the Mandal Revenue Officer made certain proposals, which were accepted and recommended by the Revenue Divisional officer, pursuant to which, the transfer of the petitioner was made within the Mandal. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that his transfer was done due to political interference, shatters to ground. Apart from that, in case of this nature, the action falls within the domain of the administration of the authorities, in which, the Courts will not generally interfere with. However, if really, the petitioner is aggrieved, nothing prevents him from approaching the appropriate authorities instead of approaching the Tribunal without any basis. In the above facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality and legal infirmity and therefore, we see no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ________________________ Justice S. Ananda Reddy Date: 4th June, 2007 Nn/Gurc. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY WRIT PETITION No:10034 OF 2007 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 04/06/2007 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:744 OF 2005 28.1.2006