THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26274 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is working as Godown Keeper in respondent No.3 society. On 10.07.2010, he was kept in full additional charge of the post of Accounts Officer. By observing that the petitioner was not efficient in duties and did not change, in spite of repeated reminders, respondent No.3 transferred him to another branch in Visakhapatnam City as Godown Keeper/Supervisor, through orders, dated 09.09.2010. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The substantive post held by the petitioner is of Godown Keeper. It was rather incidental that he was kept in-charge of the post of Accounts Officer. The respondents could have relieved the petitioner from the in-charge of the post of Accounts Officer without mentioning any reasons, in case they found that his functioning was not satisfactory. The apprehension of the petitioner is that remarks made in the impugned order would be entered in the Service Record. This Court is of the view that such an occasion does not arise, since the appointment to the post of Accounts Officer was not a substantive arrangement nor any disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. So far as the grievance about his having been posted as Supervisor is concerned, the order is clear in its purport to the effect that the petitioner is transferred as Godown Keeper only and is required to discharge the functions of Supervisor. As long as the salary and other emoluments for the post of Godown Keeper are paid, the petitioner cannot have any plausible objection. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that respondent No.3 shall not make any adverse entries in the Service Record of the petitioner as to his method of functioning as to the Accounts Officer. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:25.10.2010 kdl