HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR W.P. No. 20388 of 2011 DATED: 20.07.2011 Between: S.M. Jeelani .. Petitioner And The Union of India and five others .. Respondents O R D E R:- The petitioner, who is working as Postal Assistant in Anantapur Postal Division, asserts that on completion of his previous tenure, the 4th respondent-Superintendent of Post Officers, Anantapur Division issued Memo dated 07.05.2011 transferring the petitioner from Head Post Office, Anantapur to Head Post Office, Guntakal. Then, the petitioner made a representation dated 19.05.2011 for his retention in Anantapur, but the 2nd respondent, by his Memo No.ST-I/RT/ATP/2011, rejected his representation. Thereafter, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 637 of 2011 seeking suspension of transfer order and also the order of the 2nd respondent, but the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, by order dated 04.07.2011, dismissed the application. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 04.07.2011 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Memo dated 07.05.2011 issued by the 4th respondent effecting transfer of the petitioner to Guntakal and also the Memo No.ST-I/RT/ATP/2011 issued by the 2nd respondent rejecting his representation. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner’s wife is suffering from “Chronic Diabetics” with Hyper Tension with cognitive health problem and she has been under treatment of expert Doctor in Anatapur for the last few months and his son is studying second year M.C.A. Course in Krishnadevaraya University, which is near Anantapur, and in support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied on a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in 1994 Supp (2) SCC 666, and prays to allow the writ petition. The learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for the respondents has submitted that the reason for effecting transfer of the petitioner to Head Post Office, Guntakal is on administrative grounds/exigencies particularly with regard to the fact the he has been involved in financial irregularities, as such, the impugned orders need not be interfered with. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The 2nd respondent, while rejecting the representation of the petitioner for his retention at Anantapur Postal Division, vide Memo No.ST-I/RT/ATP/2011, made the following observations: “Representation of Sri S.M.Jeelani dated 19.05.2011 is examined and found that education of the son is not a valid ground as his son is a grown-up person and studying MC.A. Transferring the official from Anantapur to Guntakal does not hinder the continuing studies of his son. The other ground i.e. ill-health of wife is also examined and found that it is unconvincing. Guntakal is not a remote area. It is a major Railway junction and Head Quarters for Divisional Railway Manager and good medical facilities are there at Guntakal. A good number of physicians are practicing at Guntakal. The official can find treatment for the diseases mentioned in his representation dated 19.05.2011 at Guntakal as well.” Further, the law is well settled that transfer is an incidence of service and any order transferring an employee from one place to another cannot be interfered with unless the same is said to be fraught with mala fides or contrary to the transfer policy or is said to have been made for extraneous considerations. Further, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner speaks only with regard to the fact that when the children are studying in school, transfer should not be effected during mid-academic term. However, in the present case, the petitioner’s son is not studying in school but pursuing his studies in the University, and the Central Administrative Tribunal, while dismissing O.A. No. 637 of 2001, dated 04.07.2011, has considered this aspect. Apart from this, it is the specific case of the learned Standing Counsel that transfer of the petitioner has been effected on administrative grounds/exigencies i.e. the petitioner is said to have been involved in certain financial irregularities. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity, legal or otherwise, in the Memo dated 07.05.2011 issued by the 4th respondent effecting transfer of the petitioner to Head Post Office, Guntakal. Hence, this writ petition is devoid of merits, and the same is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 20.07.2011 _______________ K.G. SHANKAR, J bcj