IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 15154 of 2008 Between: Jane Lrine Bennyson D/o.R.H.Bannyson N.S.B.A U.P.S Rajahmundry E.G District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt of A.P rep.by its principal Secretary Education(SEPS.II) Department, Secretariat Hyderabad 2 The Director of School Education Hyderabad 3 The Regional Joint Director of School Education Kakinada 4 The District Education Officer East Godavari District Kakinada 5 M.E.O Rajahmundry(Urban) Rajhmundry E.G District 6 Sri Victoria Aided U.P.S Rajahmundry E.G District rep.by Correspondent 7 The N.S.B.A U.P.S Rajahmundry E.G District Rep.by its Special Officer 8 Kum B.Ratnamba D/o.Apparao, E.G District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the Memo No.203/SE PS.II/A1/2008 dt.04-07-2008 issued by the Government of A.P 1st Respondent herein as illegal arbitrary unreasonable null and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondent No : GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition is ﬁled challenging Memo No.203/SE PS.II/A1/2008, dated 4.7.2008 issued by the first respondent. Under the impugned memo dated 4.7.2008, 8th respondent is sought to be transferred from 6th respondent School to 7th respondent school. It is the case of the petitioner is that she was appointed in the 7th respondent School in the year 1984 as Second Grade Teacher and she has been working continuously as such and in view of her meritorious service and seniority, she has been put as Full Additional Charge to the post of Principal of the 7th respondent School. It is her grievance that, if 8th respondent, who is senior to her, is transferred to 7th respondent school, she may be preferred to be appointed as Principal (Full Additional Charge) in her place. In fact, earlier, when one post of Secondary Grade Teacher was sought to be upgraded as School Assistant in the 7th respondent-School, by proceedings dated 23.07.2003 of the Commissioner and Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the same was rejected on the ground that it involves ﬁnancial implications. While that being so, now the 8th respondent is sought to be transferred to the 7th respondent school under the impugned proceedings. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this is a plan hatched by somebody else to deny the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Full Additional Charge Principal in her due turn. What could not be done during 2003 is sought to be done by way of transfer under the impugned proceedings. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondents strenuously contended that the petitioner has no right whatsoever, under law, to question the impugned proceedings. The impugned proceedings are issued on administrative exigencies to accommodate the 8th respondent in the 7th respondent school. Such transfer, which does not aﬀect service conditions of the petitioner, could not have been challenged by way of filing this writ petition. Apart from that, the school is not the unit for the purpose of transfer, seniority and promotion, therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. I am in full agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 8th respondent - Sri Rudra Prasad - that the petitioner has no right whatsoever to question the impugned proceedings transferring the 8th respondent to the 7th respondent school. It is only the apprehension of the petitioner that in view of transfer of 8th respondent to 7th respondent school, she would be reverted to the post of Second Grade Teacher. May be, in a given case, it may happen; but that itself does not create a right for the petitioner to challenge the impugned Proceedings. Further, it is an admitted fact that the school is not a unit for the purpose of promotion, transfer, seniority etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the very same proceedings, whereunder the 8th respondent was transferred to the 7th respondent school, were challenged by the Ex- Correspondent of the 6th respondent school in a writ petition being WP No.17090 of 2008, which was admitted and interim stay was granted. However, in view of interim orders of this Court in the said writ petition, the District Educational Oﬃcer also directed the 8th respondent herein to report before the 6th respondent school. Those are the matters, which are to be worked out in the said writ petition itself. Insofar as the present writ petition is concerned, absolutely there is no right, either legal or otherwise of the petitioner is infringed, calling for interference of this Court. Under those circumstances, the transfer of the petitioner from 6th respondent to 7th respondent school cannot be found fault with. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ___________ 16-09-2008 rkk