THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO. 24064 OF 2009 Date of disposal: 10.11.2009 Between: S. Jagan Mohan Reddy …Petitioner And The Chief Executive Officer and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO. 24064 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) 1. The unsuccessful applicant before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, at Hyderabad in OA No. 9166 of 2009 has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 25.8.2009. 2. In the above said OA the petitioner had challenged the order in RC. No. A3/2022/2009, dated 15.7.2009 whereunder the 1st respondent herein had transferred the petitioner from Racherla Mandal to Markapuram Mandal in Prakasham district. Consequently in the place of petitioner, the 5th respondent was posted. The petitioner questioned the said transfer order dated 15.7.2009 on the ground that even under G.O. Ms. No. 169, Finance (W & M) Department, dated 17.6.2009 transfer exceeding 20% of the employees in any cadre is not permissible and that there were several other employees who were staying at Racherla Mandal for much longer period than the petitioner. The Tribunal considered the said contentions in the light of the counter filed by the respondents and came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been transferred along with other persons and that the contention that he alone was singled out, is not correct. The other contention that the transfer order was ante-dated as alleged by the petitioner was also held against him. The further contention of the petitioner with respect to restriction of transfer beyond 20% under GO Ms.No. 169, Finance (W & M) Department, dated 17.6.2009 was also negatived and the OA was ultimately dismissed. Questioning the said order this writ petition is filed. 3. We have heard learned counsel for parties. Mr. M. Ratna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has fairly conceded that the ground relating to restriction of transfer beyond 20% raised in the OA is not sustainable. He, however, submits that the 5th respondent who was transferred in the place of the petitioner has already made a representation dated 14.8.2009 requesting the 1st respondent to reconsider his transfer and similarly the petitioner has also made a representation dated 28.10.2009 requesting the 1st respondent to reconsider his transfer on personal ground and on health grounds of his aged mother and unmarried sister. The learned counsel, therefore, requests that interest of justice would be met, if the 1st respondent is directed to consider the representation filed by the petitioner as well as that of 5th respondent and take a decision in the matter so that if the said representations are sympathetically considered by the 1st respondent, no further grievance would remain. 4. Though we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that it would be just and proper to direct the 1st respondent to consider the representation dated 21.10.2009 of the petitioner as well as that of the 5th respondent dated 14.8.2009 and pass appropriate orders thereon, preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. With the above direction, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _________________ KR V. ESWARAIAH, J Dt. 10.11.2009 _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J