HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU W.P.No. 16978 of 2011 Date: 21-06-2011 Between: M. Devender …………. Petitioner And The Divisional Engineer, Operations, APCPDCL, Gooty, Ananthapur District and others. …………. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU W.P.No. 16978 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the representation of the petitioner to continue him to work at Guntakal in view of the respondents committing breach of terms of mutual transfer in place of respondent No.5, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition are stated as follows: The petitioner has been working as a Lineman, Operations, D-1, APCPDCL, at Guntakal since June, 2010. While so, the respondents considered the request of respondent No.5, who is also working as a Lineman, Operations, Distribution, APCPDCL at Rayadurg, Ananthapur District, for mutual transfer by posting the petitioner in his place and posting him in the place of petitioner, and the respondents and the employee asked the petitioner to give one formal representation and accordingly, the petitioner gave a representation for mutual transfer. The respondents endorsed on the letter through proceedings END NO:ADE/O/GTL/HC/D NO:286/2011, dated 31-05-2011. But all of a sudden the respondents without any reason changed the terms of the mutual transfer. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 14-06-2011 to the first respondent stating that in case of change of the terms of mutual transfer and if there is no possibility of promotion to him, he may be continued in the present place at Guntakal. As the respondents did not pass any orders, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that without there being any notice, the petitioner was transferred and that he made an application for mutual transfer, but it has not been considered. 4. Admittedly the petitioner made a representation to the first respondent for mutual transfer. Appropriate decision has been taken by the respondents in effecting the transfer in accordance with law and rules governing the service conditions of the petitioner with regard to effecting the transfers of the employees. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to take appropriate decision on the representation of the petitioner dated 14-06-2011 and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J Date: 21-06-2011 YCR