HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 31539 OF 2010 Between: S. Samba Siva Reddy S/o Late Sesha Reddy ………….Petitioner AND G.P. Hanumanna S/o G. Madhava Swamy and four others ………….Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Challenging the order dated 9.12.2010 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No. 6848 of 2010, the present Writ Petition is filed. Petitioner herein is the 4th respondent in O.A. O.A.No. 6848 of 2010 was filed by the first respondent herein under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking to set aside the impugned proceedings dated 1.10.2010 of the first respondent- Deputy Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, which is contrary to G.O.Ms.No. 143 Finance Department dated 21.6.2007 and G.O.Ms.No. 196 Finance Department dated 22.7.2009 and Memo dated 23.4.2010. That O.A was allowed and the impugned order dated 1.10.2010 transferring the applicant as Joint Sub-Registrar-II, R.O., Kurnool and posting the 4th respondent therein in his place is set aside. The relevant portion reads as under: “Therefore, the OA is allowed. The impugned order vide proceedings proceeding No. A/181/2010, dated 1.10.2010 transferring the applicant as Joint Sub-Registrar-II, R.O., Kurnool, and posting the 4th respondent in his place is set aside. The applicant shall be continued at Nandyal till orders are passed in accordance with the Government Policy. If the applicant and the 4th respondent already joined the new stations, they shall be reposted to the original posts. It is for the respondents to post the 4th respondent at the place where the department feels appropriate, according to the guidelines.” Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. C. V. Rajeeva Reddy vehemently contended that posting of an employee is the prerogative of the Government and the employee cannot claim as a matter of right to be posted at one place since in the counter it was mentioned that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in R.O Kurnool and as such he is capable of managing the Registrar Office, Kurnool efficiently and effectively and cater to the needs of the registering public and in view of the long service rendered in R.O Kurnool, the applicant was transferred and posted as Joint Sub-Registrar-II, R.O., Kurnool. It does not mean that the applicant was transferred with malafide intention and as a vindictive measure to accommodate the petitioner herein who was on leave for more than three months. He also contended that the Government as a matter of policy taken a decision but on the intervention of the Member of Legislative Assembly, the petitioner herein has been posted to Nandyal from Kadapa whereas the applicant before the Tribunal was posted from Nandyal to Kurnool thus the order of transfer was challenged on the ground that he has not completed the required period of service. He also brought to our notice the proceedings dated 24.4.2010 of the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Kurnool Range, Kurnool, wherein it is observed as under: “Sri S. Samba Siva Reddy, Sub Registrar, Grade-II, Sub Registrar’s Office, Badvel, Proddatur Registration District has exercised his option indicating Assistant Registrar of Chits, District Registrar’s Office, Kadapa, as his first choice. His request is considered and is transferred and posted as Assistant Registrar of Chits, District Registrar’s Office, Kadapa vice Smt. G. Venkataratnamma, Assistant Registrar of Chits, District Registrar’s Office, Kadapa is transferred. The transfer effected above is at the request and option exercised by the individual during the counselling and as such the above person is not eligible for sanction of TTA.” He further brought to our notice the proceedings dated 11.6.2010 of the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Kurnool Range, wherein it is observed as under: “The Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad, has directed in the reference 3rd cited to transfer Sri S. Samba Siva Reddy, Assistant Registrar of Chits, District Registrar’s Office, Kadapa as Joint Sub-Registrar-I, R.O, Kadapa in the existing leave vacancy. Keeping in view the administrative exigencies and also the circumstances stated above, Sri S. Samba Siva Reddy, under the orders of transfer as Assistant Registrar of Chits, District Registrar’s Office, Kadapa is transferred and posted as Joint Sub Registrar-I, Registrar Office, Kadapa in the existing leave vacancy.” The learned counsel further relied on the judgment of this Court reported in B. SURESH VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE[1], wherein this Court at paragraph No. 7 observed as under: “7. G.O.Ms. No. 143, dated 21.6.2007, on which the petitioner strongly relied on, exempted certain revenue earning departments i.e. Commercial Taxes Department, Prohibition and Excise Department, the 1st respondent herein, and Registration & Stamps Department from the ban on transfers superseding the earlier G.O.Ms.No. 100, dated 1.5.2007 and issuing certain guidelines for effecting transfers in the said departments. The G.O. further authorised the said departments to exercise the powers to effect transfers of Government employees in the said departments on completion of two years strictly based on the performance and duly following the guidelines for transfers as laid down in the annexure of the said G.O.” He further relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in RAJENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS[2]. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the petitioner herein exercised his option indicating that Assistant Registrar of Chits, District Registrar’s Office, Kadapa, as his first choice and his request was considered and he was transferred and posted as Assistant Registrar of Chits, District Registrar’s Office, Kadapa vide proceedings dated 24.4.2010 of the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Kurnool Range, Kurnool and he did not join there and thereafter he applied for leave for three months therefore, at the instance of Member of Legislative Assembly his transfer was taken place, therefore, the Tribunal rightly interfered with the transfer order and there is no illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. The point that arises for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal is justified in interfering with the transfer order? The transfer is an incidence of service. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the transfer orders unless it is shown that such transfer order is issued with a malafide intention. As seen from the record, as the post of Joint Sub-Registrar-II, R.O, Kurnool was vacant, the first respondent herein was posted in the said vacant post. In order to accommodate the first respondent herein in a suitable post he was transferred from the post of Joint Sub-Registrr-II, R.O. Nandyal to act as Joint Sub-Registrar-II, R.O Kurnool, which is one of the heaviest offices in Zone-IV. It is also on record, that the first respondent was appointed as Junior Assistant in R.O Kurnool and as such he is capable of managing the Registrar Office, Kurnool efficiently and effectively and cater to the needs of the registering public and in view of the long service rendered in R.O Kurnool, the first respondent was transferred and posted as Joint Sub- Registrar-II, R.O Kurnool. Therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the transfer order and ought not to have set aside the proceedings dated 1.10.2010 transferring the applicant as Joint Sub- Registrar-II, R.O., Kurnool, and posting the 4th respondent in his place. Be that as it may, in RAJENDRA SINGH ANDOTHERS VS. STTE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS (Supra-2) as relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Supreme Court at paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 observed as under: “8. A government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary. No Government can function if the government servant insists that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires (see State of UP vs. Gobardhan Lal 9. The Courts are always reluctant in interfering with the transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of some statutory provisions or suffers from mala fides. In Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar (1991 SUPP (2) SCC 659) this Court held : (SCC P 661, Para 4) “4. In our opinion, the courts should ot interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. If the courts continue to interfere with day to day transfer orders issue by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration, which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders.” Following the above judgment of the Supreme Court reported in RAJENDRA SINGH ANDOTHERS VS. STTE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS (Supra-2) the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order dated 9.12.2010 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 6848 of 2010 is quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J DATE: 21.12.2010 KA Note: Furnish copy on one week ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies. [1] 2010 (4) ALT 585 (D.B) [2] (2009) 15 SCC 178