IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 1509 of 2009 Between: Sri. V. Ramesh Kumar, S/o. Ramachandran, S.C.R. Vijayawada, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 South Central Railways UOI Reptd., By its General manager, III Floor, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 2 South Central Railways, Chief Personnel Officer, IV Floor, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 3 South Central Railways, Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Vijayawada Division, Krishna District. 4 South Central Railways, Divisional Railway Manager, Vijayawada Division, Krishna 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 an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, after calling for records and quash the order in O.A.No. 763/2008, dt. 28-11-2008 on the file of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal as the same is illegal, arbitrary and unjust consequently set aside the transfer order of the 3rd respondent proceedings No. B/C 352/OA/306/08/CAT/HYB/HYB, dt. 18-11-2008 transferring the Applicant from the Vijayawada Division to Nanded Division and pass such further order or orders as the Court deem fit and propert. Counsel for the Petitioner: R.G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: MR.R.S.MURTHY The Court made the following : ORDER : THE HOH’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WP No.1509 OF 2009 ORDER : ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of certiorari, after calling for the records and quash the order dated 28-11- 2008 passed in OA No.763 of 2008 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad, as being illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the transfer order passed by the 3rd respondent transferring the petitioner from Vijayawada Division to Nanded Division. 2. The petitioner in the OA has questioned his transfer from Vijayawada to Nanded Division. The petitioner already filed OA No.306 of 2008 challenging the very same transfer order and the same dismissed by the Tribunal, against which the petitioner filed writ petition being WP No.22856 of 2008 and this Court while dismissing the said writ petition observed that it was open to him to make a representation to the respondents to transfer him to the nearby division and till appropriate orders are passed after affording personal hearing to the petitioner on the representation filed by him, granted status-quo till a decision was taken in the matter. It is stated that the petitioner could not go to Secunderabad on 17-11-2008 or on 18-11-2008 to represent his case personally to the respondents and in the meanwhile the impugned order has been passed rejecting the request of the petitioner. The petitioner filed the present OA for the self same relief and the same was dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent-Railways. Perused in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 4. It is settled proposition of law that transfer is an incidence of service and the area of interference is very narrow and limited and interference can warrant only if it is pointed out violation of statutory rules or malafides are alleged and made out. In this view of the matter we are not inclined to interdict the order passed by Tribunal upholding the order of transfer. In the circumstances, we direct the petitioner to report to duty at Nanded Division forthwith and thereafter make appropriate representation to the respondents authorities seeking his transfer to suitable place and on such a representation being filed by the petitioner, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders thereon after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner with a reasonable period. 5. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ___________________ Sanjay Kumar, J Dated : 2-2-2009 Nrg. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}