IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27621 of 2008 Between: T. Srinivasa Rao S/o. Late T. Tirupataiah IC City, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director, Police Communications Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .....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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by calling the records relating to transfer order in proceedings C.N. 614/A2/2008 dt. 22-10-2008 and also orders in O.A.No. 8736/2008 dt. 12-12- 2008 passed by the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and set aside both as violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.SRINIVASA BABA Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per GM, J) This writ petition is filed challenging the transfer order dated 22.10.2008 in C.No.614/A2/2008 and also the order dated 12.12.2008 passed in O.A.No.8736 of 2008 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to set aside the same. The petitioner, while working as Inspector, Communications, Hyderabad, was directed to look after the duties of the Inspector, Communications, Khammam vide letter dated 16.09.2008 in place of one Sri N. Seetha Ramulu, Inspector of Police, who proceeded on medical leave for 45 days, in addition to his regular duties at Hyderabad. After expiry of the leave of said Seetha Ramulu, the respondents issued proceedings dated 22.10.2008 transferring the petitioner permanently from Hyderabad to Khammam to work as Inspector, Communications. Aggrieved by the same, he filed O.A.No.8736 of 2008 and the same was dismissed. Against which, he filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order of transfer is against the policy guidelines issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.169, dated 26.06.2008. He further contended that though there are several persons, who put in more than 8 to 10 years of service at Hyderabad, only transferring the petitioner from Hyderabad to Khammam is illegal and arbitrary. In support of the said contention, he relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN v. DAMODAR PRASAD PANDEY. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 22.10.2008, it clearly shows that the petitioner, who was working as Inspector, Communications, Hyderabad, was transferred and posted as Inspector, Communications, Khammam in the existing vacancy on administrative grounds as there was an absolute need of a regular Inspector in Khammam district in view of continuous extremist activities. As per Act 9 of 1985 Andhra Pradesh Members of Police Force (Regulation of transfers) Act, 1985, the police force is liable to serve in any part of the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Tribunal has rightly held that since the petitioner has rendered 27 years at Hyderabad, he cannot contend that he alone has been transferred by retaining the persons, who are overstayed at Hyderabad. It is well settled that transfer is an incidence of service and is made due to administrative exigencies. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fide or is made in violation of operative any guidelines or rules, the Courts should not ordinarily interfere with it. In the instant case, since the petitioner has been transferred on administrative grounds without any malafide intention or in violation of the guidelines, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the orders impugned warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J __________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Date:18.12.2008 sj