IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1199 OF 2009 Dt.28.10.2009 Between: Smt. R. Celestial … Appellant And 1. The A.P.S.W.R.E.I. Society, Hyderabad, Rep., by its Secretary 2. The Principal, A.P.S.W.R.S./ Junior College, LPRP, B.Camp., Kurnool, Kurnool District … Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Mavidi Rama Rao Counsel for the Respondents: Sri K. Durga Prasad WRIT APPEAL NO.1273 OF 2009 Between: Smt. R. Celestial … Appellant And 1. The A.P.S.W.R.E.I. Society, Hyderabad, Rep., by its Secretary 2. The Principal, A.P.S.W.R.S./ Junior College, LPRP, B.Camp., Kurnool, Kurnool District 3. Smt. Uzwala Anantham … Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Mavidi Rama Rao Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Sri K. Durga Prasad Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Sri M.V.S. Sai Kumar THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NOs.1199 AND 1273 OF 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) At the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, both the Writ Appeals are taken up for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment, as they are connected with each other and arise out of a common order passed by the learned Single Judge. For the sake of convenience, the appellant in both the appeals is referred to as the appellant and respondent No.3 in Writ Appeal No.1273 of 2009 is referred to as respondent No.3. The appellant was working as a Lecturer in respondent No.1 – Society at B.Camp, in Kurnool, from the year 2003. Five years after her working at the said place, she was transferred to Koilakuntla by order dt.6.6.2008 passed by respondent No.1. The appellant ultimately made a representation for transferring her back to B.Camp, Kunrool. Accordingly, by order dt.23.8.2008, respondent No.1 transferred the appellant back to B. Camp, Kurnool. A few days thereafter, the said order was cancelled by the Chairman of respondent No.1 by order dt.29.9.2008. Questioning the said order, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.22264 of 2008 in this Court. This Court granted an interim stay of the said order. In the meantime, during the counselling for transfers for the year 2009-2010, respondent No.3 opted for B.Camp, Kurnool, where the appellant had been working. Her request was accepted and she was transferred to and posted at B.Camp, Kurnool, by proceedings dt.16.7.2009. The appellant was transferred to another place – Kambalapadu. A few days later, having realized that the transfer of the appellant was made during the subsistence of an interim stay obtained by her in W.P.No.22264 of 2008, her transfer to Kambalapadu was kept in abeyance by order dt.21.7.2009. As a result of the same, the appellant was continued at B.Camp, Kurnool. Assailing the said order dt.21.7.2009, respondent No.3 filed W.P.No.15012 of 2009. The learned Single Judge heard both the Writ Petitions and disposed of the same by a common order, which is the subject-matter of these Writ Appeals. In her order, the learned Single Judge observed that the posting of respondent No.3 at B.Camp, Kurnool, was ex facie erroneous, because there was no clear vacancy in existence at that time as the appellant was continued on account of the order of stay granted by this Court in the Writ Petition filed by her. The learned Judge, however, found that as the appellant has already completed more than five years at B.Camp, Kurnool, she cannot be continued at the said place any longer as per the guidelines. On this premise, the learned Judge gave a direction to respondent No.2 to review the entire issue, after giving an opportunity to both the parties, and take a decision in accordance with law after obtaining necessary approval of respondent No.1. The learned Judge further ordered that the said exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and that till then status quo as on the date of passing of the order shall be maintained in all respects. At the hearing, Sri Mavidi Rama Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the very posting of respondent No.3 in the place of the appellant, in the absence of clear vacancy and during subsistence of interim order was clearly illegal. The learned Counsel further argued that having come to know about the subsistence of the interim order, respondent No.1 ought to have cancelled the order passed in favour of respondent No.3 posting her at B.Camp, Kurnool, instead of keeping the same in abeyance. He further submitted that the appellant was transferred on completion of five years and was brought back on her representation on health grounds. There was no illegality contends the Counsel in the order dt.23.8.2008 and that the Chairman of respondent No.1 – Society ought not to have cancelled the said order. Having heard Sri K. Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Sri M.V.S. Sai Kumar, learned Counsel for respondent No.3, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record. The questions as to whether the appellant was entitled to be continued at B.Camp, Kurnool even after completion of five years and whether respondent No.3 should be transferred to the said place or not, are required to be examined by the competent authority. It is well- settled principle of service jurisprudence that transfer is an incidence of service and no employee has a vested right to work at a place of his/her choice and the employee is bound to work at a place where he/she is transferred subject to relevant considerations being kept in mind by the employer while effecting transfers of the employees. In this view of the matter, even assuming that the appellant was suffering from fluorosis, she has no legal right to insist that she should be allowed to continue at B.Camp, Kurnool on that ground. At any rate, it is for respondent No.1 to exercise its sound discretion, having regard to the totality of the circumstances and the situation in which the appellant and respondent No.3 are placed. It is relevant to notice that respondent No.1 is the transferring authority. The learned Single Judge directed respondent No.2 to review the entire issue. It is admitted by the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the direction to respondent No.2 is an obvious mistake and instead, it is respondent No.1, which has to consider the issue afresh. Therefore, we direct respondent No.1 instead of respondent No.2 to consider the case of the appellant and respondent No.3 afresh and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from today. While disposing of the Writ Petitions, the learned Single Judge has protected the interests of the appellant by directing status quo to be maintained. On the strength of the said order, the appellant will continue at B.Camp., Kurnool, till such time as respondent No.1 reconsiders the whole matter afresh. Subject to above modification, the Writ Appeals are dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Appeals, W.A.M.P. No.2552 of 2009 in W.A. No.1199 of 2009, filed by the appellant for interim relief, is dismissed as infructuous. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28.10.2009 bnr