THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23731 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is working as Driver in the Narsipatnam Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. There was shortage of drivers in the Visakhapatnam depot. The junior most drivers working in various depots in Visakhapatnam Region were transferred to Visakhapatnam depot vide proceedings dated 09.03.2011. Though the petitioner was junior most at Narsipatnam, he was not transferred, on account of the reason that, on a request made by him, a driver of that depot, by name V.R.Babu, agreed to be transferred to Visakhapatnam. However, the Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam, the 2nd respondent, issued proceedings dated 16.08.2011, cancelling the said arrangement and directing that the petitioner be transferred to Visakhapatnam, and V.R.Babu, who is working at Visakhapatnam on transfer, is re- transferred to Narsipatnam. The said proceedings are challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The 2nd respondent, has undertaken exercise to transfer the junior most drivers working in various depots of the region to Visakhapatnam. The petitioner was within the range of transfer from Narsipatnam, in that exercise. However, a senior to him, by name V.R.Babu, who was not within the range of transfer, had agreed to be posted at Visakhapatnam, on a request made by the petitioner. That obviated the necessity of effecting the transfer of the petitioner. Therefore, in the orders of transfer issued by the 2nd respondent on 09.03.2011, the name of the petitioner did not figure and V.R.Babu from Narsipatnam was transferred to Visakhapatnam. The 2nd respondent passed order dated 16.08.2011, transferring the petitioner from Narsipatnam to Visakhapatnam. The only ground mentioned therein was that V.R.Babu was subjected to disciplinary proceedings, when he was working as driver in Anakapalli depot and that he could not have been transferred to Visakhapatnam in the place of the petitioner. Hardly there is any nexus between the reasons stated by the 2nd respondent and the action taken by him. It is not as if the said driver was under suspension or was facing any disciplinary proceedings, when he was transferred. He was as good as any other driver and he volunteered to be transferred to Visakhapatnam. There was absolutely no basis for the 2nd respondent to issue the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:23.09.2011. GJ