THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.5215 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 15.02.2010 passed in O.A.No.57 of 2010 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the service of the respondents-Railways on 24.10.1988 in Commercial Department as Senior Ticket Examiner under sports quota in Hyderabad Division. He was placed under suspension on 01.10.2009 on the ground of his indulging in malpractices on 29/30.09.2009 during the decoy check conducted by the Vigilance wing of the South Central Railway. Thereafter, the respondents while revoking his suspension, transferred him from Hyderabad to Vijayawada Division on administrative grounds, vide proceedings dated 22.10.2009, which were challenged by the petitioner by filing O.A.No.1109 of 2009 before the Tribunal, which in turn disposed of the same on 06.01.2010 directing the respondents to modify the said order by transferring the petitioner to any neighbouring division and maintain status quo till such time. In compliance of the said direction, the respondents vide proceedings dated 29.01.2010 transferred the petitioner to Nanded Division. Aggrieved by the same, he filed O.A.No.57 of 2010, wherein the Tribunal having held that there is no reason to interfere with the transfer order dated 29.01.2010 as it has been issued in compliance of the order of the Tribunal dated 06.01.2010 in O.A.No.1109 of 2009, dismissed the same on 15.02.2010. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner’s wife is working in Railways at Hyderabad division and that as per the instructions of the Government of India vide Office Memorandum dated 30.09.2009, if both the spouses are in same Central Service, they may mandatorily be posted in the same division. He further contended that his transfer has to be effected under inter-divisional transfers. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for Railways, appearing for the respondents, has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment in W.P.No.11772 of 2008 dated 15.09.2009, wherein this Court held that in consequence to the revocation of the suspension, the order of transfer is issued purely on administrative grounds and accordingly, dismissed the same and therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. The respondents while revoking the suspension of the petitioner, transferred him from Hyderabad to Vijayawada Division on administrative grounds vide proceedings dated 22.10.2009, which were directed to be modified by the Tribunal by posting the petitioner to any neighbouring division vide order dated 06.01.2010 in O.A.No.1109 of 2009 and that in compliance of the said direction, the respondents transferred the petitioner to Nanded Division as per the order impugned. The Apex Court in STATE OF UP v. GOBARDHAN LAL[1] held as under: “Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision. A challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the Courts or Tribunals as though they are appellate authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. This is for the reason that Courts or Tribunals cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent authorities of the State and even allegations of mala fides when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the Court or are based on concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made with an order of transfer”. In view of the reasons stated in the above cited judgment, this Court cannot interfere with the order of transfer dated 29.01.2010 as it was issued on administrative grounds and as per the directions of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1109 of 2009 dated 06.01.2010. Therefore, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. 7. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:11.03.2010 sj [1] (2004)11 SCC 402