THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.1123 of 2006 DATED: 02.02.2006 Between: N.V.S.N.Murty, s/o.Surya Rao, 57 yrs., Occur:Warehouse Manager Gr-I, A.P.State Warehousing Corporation, Kotabommali Warehouse. … Petitioner and The A.P.State Warehousing Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Hyd. 2. The General Manager, (P&A) A.P.State Warehousing Corporation. 3. Sri D.Lakshminarayana, Asst.Manager (Tech) Grade-I, A.P.State Warehouse Corporation, Vishakhapatnam. … Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.1123 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner is a Manager Grade-I in the Warehousing Corporation, the respondent herein. At present he is working at Kotabommali and handling a godown at that place. Through proceedings dated 18.1.2006, the second respondent transferred the petitioner to Vishakapatnam, to handle a godown and the third respondent is posted in the place of the petitioner at Kotabommali. The petitioner challenges the same. It is contended that the godown at Vishakapatnam is almost non-functional and the petitioner is transferred only with the object of accommodating the third respondent at Kotabommali. In the counter filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that the petitioner is Manager Grade-I and having regard to the capacity of godown at Vishakapatnam, he alone is competent to be posted there. It is stated that the capacity of the godown at Kotabommali is 20,000 and it can be handled by a junior officer, like third respondent. Sri G.Vidyasagar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned proceedings are issued only with an object of accommodating the third respondent, particularly at a stage where the left over service of the petitioner is hardly one year. He contends that there is absolutely no work at the godown at Vishakapatnam and it is almost a liability for the respondents to maintain them. He contends that the petitioner was taking steps to settle at his native place at Vizianagaram and transferring him to Vishakapatnam at this stage would cause irreparable hardship. Ms.R.Kameshwari, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, on the other hand submits that the impugned proceedings were issued transferring the petitioner and the third respondent to the corresponding places of importance, taking into account the capacities of the godowns. She contends that at several stages petitioner himself requested that he be posted at Vishakapatnam. The scope of interference with the orders of transfer in the service of government and the public sector undertakings is very limited. Even where the guidelines issued by the competent authority in relation to transfers are violated, it does not constitute a ground per se for interference with the orders of transfer. In the instant case the transfer of the petitioner is effected on the ground that being a senior officer he has to handle a godown of a higher capacity. It is not in dispute that the capacity of the godown at Kotabommali is 20,000 and that of the one at Vishakapatnam is 40,000 as of now. Even assuming that the business or occupancy in the godown at Vishakapatnam is not up to optimum, the respondents have to adhere to the norms in the matter of posting the officers of appropriate rank depending on the capacities of the godowns. Record discloses that even as late as in November 2005, the petitioner requested the respondents 1 and 2 to post him to Vishakapatnam on the ground that his aged parents are undergoing treatment at that place. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned proceedings are issued with a view to accommodate the third respondent, this Court is unable to discern such a ground. While Vishakapatnam is a District headquarter, Kotabommali is not even a municipality. This Court is not able to find any basis to interfere with the impugned proceedings. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is granted 15 days time from today to report to duty at the transferred place. ___________ 02.02.2006 mdaa.