HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1083 OF 2009 AND WRIT PETITION No. 14395 Of 2007 Dated: 25-08-2009 WRIT APPEAL No. 1083 OF 2009 Between: D. Chandrabhanu ... APPELLANT AND V.V. Subbaiah and two others ... RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No. 14395 OF 2007 Between: V.V. Subbaiah ... PETITIONER AND Girijan Cooperative Corporation Limited, Visakhapatnam, rep., by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director and two others ... RESPONDENTS HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1083 OF 2009 AND WRIT PETITION No. 14395 Of 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) When Writ Appeal No. 1083 of 2009 came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the parties requested for taking up Writ Petition No. 14395 of 2007 for hearing along with the writ appeal because the appeal was filed against an interlocutory order passed in the said writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition has been posted today for being heard along with the writ appeal. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petition. The petitioner at the relevant time had been working as Senior Assistant in respondent No. 1 – Girijan Cooperative Corporation Limited, Visakhapatnam (for short, ‘the Corporation’). On completion of three years at Srisailam, the petitioner was transferred to MFP Godown, Karmanghat, Hyderabad on 28-06-2005. By proceedings dated 22-06-2007, the petitioner was transferred from Hyderabad to MFP Godown at Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. In the place of the petitioner, respondent No.3 was posted at Hyderabad. That order has been questioned by the petitioner in the writ petition. Ad interim order was granted on 06-07-2007, whereby a direction was given by the learned single Judge not to relieve the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order. WVMP No. 1625 of 2007 filed by respondent No.3 was dismissed by the learned single Judge by order dated 11-09-2007 and the interim order granted earlier was made absolute. Assailing the said order, respondent No.3 filed Writ Appeal No. 1083 of 2009. We have heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the record. The only ground on which the petitioner questioned his transfer order was that under circular bearing RC.No.650/2006/Admn.2, dated 27-04-2006 issued by respondent No.1 – Corporation, an employee shall not ordinarily be transferred from the place of his working for a period of three years. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was transferred to Hyderabad only on 28-06-2005, he was again transferred to Kamareddy before completion of three years and, that therefore, the transfer order which was made at the instance of respondent No.3 was contrary to the above mentioned circular. The petitioner pleaded that his two children were studying in Hyderabad and, therefore, the impugned transfer order dislocated his family and disturbed his children’s education. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent No.3 filed separate counter affidavits, wherein the allegations made by the petitioner were denied. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the circular dated 27-04-2006 does not vest any right in an employee to insist on his stay at a particular place and that the Corporation is at liberty to effect transfers for administrative reasons and in its interests. It is further averred that respondent No.3 applied to the Corporation on 30-04-2007 for his transfer on the ground that from the time of his appointment, he was made to work in interior tribal villages for about 19 years and that as his children have grownup and for providing them with better education, he requested for his transfer to Hyderabad. It is further stated that as the petitioner worked at Divisional Office, Srisailam for more than ten years and was transferred to Regional Office, Hyderabad during 2005, the Corporation felt it desirable to transfer him outside Hyderabad in order to accommodate respondent No.3. In our considered view, the petitioner does not have a vested right to insist that he should be allowed to work at a particular place for a specified period. While transfer is an incidence of service, the employer has a right to effect transfer of its employees. So long as exercise of such power is not for extraneous considerations or for malafide reasons, this Court does not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interdict such transfers. No specific malafides have been attributed by the petitioner against the respondents except stating that the transfer was effected at the instance of respondent No.3. Having considered the reasons assigned by respondent No. 1 – Corporation, we are of the view that the Corporation has exercised its discretion for a legitimate purpose in order to accommodate respondent No.3 who belongs to ST Category and who was never permitted to work at Hyderabad for 19 long years. At any rate, even according to the petitioner, under the above mentioned circular, he was entitled to continue at Hyderabad for a period of three years. Assuming so, the period of three years had expired by 27-06-2008. On the strength of the interim order, the petitioner is allowed to work even beyond three years and till today. On the above facts, we do not find any reason to allow the petitioner to continue further as the period of three years had already expired. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, WPMP No. 18091 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed and interim order dated 06-07-2009 stands vacated. WVMP No. 1625 of 2007 filed for vacating the interim order is disposed of as infructuous. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, the writ appeal and WAMP No. 2168 of 2009 are dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25th August, 2009 ks