IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.18661 OF 2011 Date:18.07. 2011 Between:- G.David Mohan Rao .. Petitioner And The Government of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, APSWREI Society, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.18661 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the entire records pertaining to the impugned proceedings/Errata issued by respondent No.3 in Rc.No.A1/1/2011, dated 28.06.2011, transferring the petitioner from Kakumanu, Guntur District to Vinukonda, Guntur District as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct the respondents to consider the petitioner to the post of Training Graduate Teacher, (English), APSWRS (B), Pallapatla, Guntur District or in alternate, appoint the petitioner at Kakumanu, Guntur District and to set aside the impugned proceedings. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Contract Teacher in the year 1997 at Mudhol Village, Adilabad District and later, his services were regularized in the year 2006 as Training Graduate Teacher (for short, ‘T.G.T.’) in Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential Society (for short, ‘A.P.S.W.R.S.’) Junior College, Golugonda, Visakhapatnam. Subsequently, he was transferred to A.P.S.W.R.S. School, Darsi, Prakasam District as T.G.T. He made a request for transfer from Darsi to Pallapatla of Guntur District on the grounds of employment of his wife and aged parents, which was accepted by respondent No.1 and posted him at Pallapatla as Post Graduate Teacher (for short, ‘P.G.T.’) and as such, working there from 24.07.2010. In the counselling held for the year 2010-2011, the P.G.T Post in which the petitioner was working was shown as a regular vacancy and it was filled by a regular P.G.T candidate and the earlier T.G.T post was shown to be vacant. The said vacancy in the boys’ school was filled up by a woman candidate. The petitioner was not permitted to attend the counselling and when he protested, he was assured that he would be posted to a nearest place on making a representation. On representation of the petitioner to post him at Returu, he was transferred to Kakumanu, Guntur District but he was not permitted to join in the said school and was instructed to approach respondent No.3 for necessary instructions. Respondent No.3 issued the impugned proceedings transferring him to Vinukonda, Guntur District by modifying the earlier transfer order. Respondent No.5 has been posted in the place of petitioner at Pallapatla. The petitioner has been transferred for three times in a period of less than one year. Kakumanu place is allotted to respondent No.6. The action of the respondents in giving preference to contract teachers is highly illegal. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. 3. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed a detailed counter denying the averments made in the writ petition. It is stated that the Government issued orders approving the guidelines for conducting of counselling for transfers of the teaching and non-teaching staff working under the administrative control of respondent No.1 society for the academic year 2011-2012. During the transfer counselling, the place of APSWRS, Pallapatla was shown as vacancy as per guideline No.17(3). Further, one K.Koteswara Rao, P.G.T (English), who completed five years of service and comes under compulsory category, opted Pallapatla and accordingly, he was transferred and posted to Pallapatla in the place of the petitioner. The place of one G.Sukanya, Contract Teacher (English), who was working in the post of T.G.T. (English) at Pallapatla, was also shown as vacancy during transfers counselling. So respondent No.5- Ch.Karuna, T.G.T. (English), A.P.S.W.R.S., Vinukonda, opted Pallapatla in the post of T.G.T (English) during transfers counselling and so, she was posted in contract vacancy. Therefore, the petitioner could not be accommodated at Pallapatla. The petitioner was temporarily appointed on regular basis as T.G.T. (English) and posted to Golugonda, Visakhapatnam District in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.59, SW Dept., dated 10.08.2007, and minutes of the 50th BG meeting held on 18.09.2007. Later, the petitioner was transferred and posted to Darsi, Prakasam District as per G.O.Ms.No.610. The petitioner submitted a representation for transfer to Pallapatla during the year 2010, which was considered and posted the petitioner at Pallapatla against P.G.T (English) post. During transfer counselling, the place of petitioner was shown as vacancy as per guidelines as the petitioner was working against P.G.T. (English). The place of Contract Teacher (English), who was working in the post of T.G.T. (English) at Pallapatla, Guntur District was also shown as vacancy. There were no instructions in the transfer guidelines that female teacher shall not be posted in boys’ institution. As per the merit list, respondent No.5 opted Pallapatla and accordingly, she was transferred and posted there. Hence, both the posts were filled up by the regular staff of P.G.T. and T.G.T. during counselling. One D.K.Kamakshi, Contract Teacher (English) was displaced at Repalle, Guntur Disrict and was allotted Kakumanu Girls’ Institution, Guntur District. The petitioner was posted at Vinukonda i.e, in the same district though the T.G.T. post is a zonal post and he could be posted in any institution at Guntur, Nellore or Prakasam Districts. A typographical error occurred in the proceedings, dated 21.06.2011, and the place of posting given to the petitioner was mentioned as ‘Kakumanu’ at Retur, instead of Vinukonda and the same was mailed to the concerned institution on 27.06.2011. Immediately, respondent No.1 issued an Erratum order to the petitioner and posted him to Vinukonda. During the year 2010, while working at Darsi, Prakasam District, the petitioner made a representation to the Chairman, A.P.S.W.R.E.I.S., Hyderabad for transfer to Pallapatla against P.G.T. (English) Post. The request was considered by the Chairman and the petitioner was posted to Pallapatla though he has not completed minimum two years of service. The post of P.G.T. (English) was shown as vacant at Pallapatla during the transfers Counselling, 2011. The petitioner opted to the post of P.G.T. (English) at Pallapatla and hence, he was transferred to Pallapatla. Respondent No.1 transferred respondent No.6 from Repalle to Kakumanu at Retur, Guntur District on spouse ground. Hence, there is no illegality in the impugned proceedings. Under clause 21 of the transfer counselling guidelines approved in G.O.Ms.No.455 SW (RS-1) Dept., dated 04.06.2011, an appeal against any order of the transfer committee shall lie with the Chairman, A.P.S.W.R.E.I. Society within ten days from the date of receipt of such order. So, the petitioner has to file an appeal to the Chairman, but he did not do so. There are no grounds in the writ petition and hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the present post, the petitioner is working since one year and that even before completion of five years of service in the said post, he was transferred to Kakumanu, Guntur District in the first instance and immediately, errata was issued transferring him to Vinukonda, Guntur District; that the petitioner cannot be posted to the girls’ school at Vinukonda as per the guidelines; that both the lady teachers were accommodated in a boys’ school and that therefore, transferring the petitioner is contrary to the guidelines issued by the respondents and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned proceedings. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 contended that at the request of the petitioner, he was posted to Pallapatla even though there was no suitable post at Pallapatla as a T.G.T. so as to accommodate him. Since that post has been filled up by regular teacher, who completed five years of service in another station, the petitioner cannot claim retention in the post as a matter of right. Though another post of T.G.T. is available, that post was filled up in the counseling, as respondent No.5 opted for it, that transferring petitioner to Kakumanu is a mistake on the part of respondent No.3 but originally, the petitioner was transferred to Vinukonda. Therefore, the transfer order does not suffer from any infirmity so as to call for interference by this Court. 6. There cannot be any dispute that the transfer is one of the incidents of service. The employee cannot have any right to claim a stay at a particular place but when the guidelines are framed, ordinarily, those guidelines have to be followed. Whether there is any arbitrary action on the part of the transferring authority in effecting transfers or not is the matter to be considered. Though there is no post of T.G.T., still, on the request of the petitioner, he was posted as P.G.T. at Pallapatla about one year back. Since then, he has been continuing there. Since a person, who is eligible to be posted as a P.G.T. has completed five years of service in another station and has opted for the present post, that person was posted to Pallapatla as a P.G.T. For that purpose, the petitioner cannot have any grievance. But there is one post of T.G.T., which is filled up through respondent No.5 for which the petitioner has got a grievance. It is stated that as respondent No.5 opted for the T.G.T. Post, she was transferred during counselling. Therefore, the petitioner could not be accommodated there. The other grievance of the petitioner is that now he is posted in a girls’ school for which the guidelines do not provide for posting of a male teacher, who is less than 50 years of age, to a girls’ school. Even those guidelines have no statutory force but they have to be followed to the extent possible to accommodate the teachers. Therefore, there is no arbitrary action on the part of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in posting the petitioner to Vinukonda, which is also in the same district. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the transfer order. However, the petitioner made a representation to respondent No.1 to consider his request. Hence, the request of the petitioner has to be considered by respondent No.1 in accordance with the guidelines. Therefore, respondent No.1 is directed to take appropriate decision on the representation of the petitioner and pass necessary orders within a period of ten (10) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 18th July, 2011. Note: Furnish C.C. by tomorrow. B/O AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.18661 OF 2011 Date:18.07.2011 AMD