HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR W.P.No. 31744 of 2010 Date: 22-12-2010 Between G. Ravinder ……….. Petitioner and The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principle Secretary, Transport, Roads and Buildings Department, and others …….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR W.P.No. 31744 of 2010 ORDER: (Per GM, J) This writ petition is filed seeking writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order, dated 20-09-2010 passed in G.O.Rt.No.886 by the first respondent, as well as the order, dated 10- 12-2010 passed in O.A.No.6414 of 2010 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash the same. The brief facts are that the petitioner is working as a Deputy Executive Engineer. Initially, he was transferred and posted from Karimnagar to Badrachalam on 16-06-2008, in pursuance of which he joined duty on 16-06-2008, and since then he has been working at Badrachalam. Now the first respondent has issued G.O.Rt.No.886, dated 20-09-2010 transferring the petitioner from Badrachalam to the office of the second respondent by posting the fourth respondent in his place, who was working in the office of the Vigilance and Enforcement Wing, Warangal. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.6414 of 2010 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and considering the entire material on record, dismissed the O.A. holding that there are no statutory rules governing the transfers and postings of the government servants. The applicant is holding a transferable job and the transfer orders are issued by the competent authority i.e., the Government by duly relaxing the ban on transfers. Furthermore, the fourth respondent, who was repatriated to his parent department, was waiting for the posting and suitable transfer orders are issued. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been working at the present place since the last two years and there was no complaint against him, but nonetheless at the instance of the local MLA, he has been disturbed from the present place, and the Tribunal has not considered the issue in proper perspective and therefore, the order of the Tribunal requires interference. Perused the impugned order and other material placed on record. The transfer is an incident in the service. The Government employee has no choice to remain at one place. The transfer orders can be interfered only on two grounds i.e., violation of any mandatory statutory Rules and mala fides. The petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right to retain at one place. Even if the contention of the petitioner that he was transferred at the behest of the local MLA is considered, the MLA, being the peoples representative, knows the need of the people and how to run the administration and the same was also upheld by the Supreme Court in various decisions. Therefore, the Tribunal gave cogent reasons and rightly upheld the transfer orders. In the circumstances, we do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order to exercise Certiorari jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J __________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J Date: 22-12-2010 YCR