THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.NO.18629 OF 2010 ORDER: ( Per GM,J) Challenging the order dated 14-07-2010 passed in O.A.No.3577 of 2010 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderbad, the present writ petition has been preferred. The brief facts of the case are that 3rd respondent herein, who is the applicant before the Tribunal, filed O.A.No.3577 of 2010 challenging G.O.Rt.No.555, dated 10.6.2010. According to him, he is working as a Motor Vehicle Inspector at Wankidi Check Post, Wankidi, Adilabad District. He was transferred to the said place on 29-6-2008, and completed one year 11 months. The petitioner herein was posted in Karimnagar in the month of August, 2009 and he has completed nine months in the said place and from there, he was transferred to the place of 3rd respondent herein viz., Wankidi. The respondent- Government issued GO by relaxing the guidelines and ban on transfers issued in G.O.Ms.NO.147 TR & B Department, dated 12-6-2007 and G.O.Ms.No.196, dated 22-7-2009. Hence, the 3rd respondent herein filed the OA. The Tribunal after evaluating the entire material placed before it, and having heard the learned counsel on either side, allowed the said O.A. Questioning the same, the present writ petition has been preferred. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent-Government vide G.O.Rt.No.555, dated 10-6-2010 transferred the petitioner from Karimnagar to Wankidi Check Post, Wankidi, Adilabad District in the place of the 3rd respondent herein, by relaxing the guidelines as a special case. He further contends that there is absolutely no political pressure in transferring the petitioner from the said place. He further contends that the petitioner has completed nearly two years of service falling short of only two weeks and he has worked in Adilabad District most of the time and has completed 18 years of service. He also contends that the Government has ample power to relax the guidelines and GO on ban on transfers and accordingly, relaxation orders were issued. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of the Apex Court in State of U.P. and others v. Gobardhan Lal[1], wherein it is held as under: “It is too late in the day for any government servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. 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 contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a malafide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as it found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision.” He also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India and others v. Ganesh Dass Singh[2], wherein it is held as under: “The respondent was posted at FOD Jodhpur from which he was transferred to the FOD Udhampur. He challenged his transfer on the ground of mala fides without indicating any particular individual against whom the mala fides were alleged, or impleading that person by name. The respondent also alleged that his superiors were annoyed on account of his trade union activities and the complaints made by him in that capacity about the functioning of the Depot. The Tribunal did not accept the respondent’s contention that the transfer was made on account of the complaints made by the respondent about the functioning of the Depot. However, the Tribunal appears to have been influenced by the respondent’s assertion that his trade union activities had influenced the transfer. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the transfer order had been made in colourable exercise of power. The transfer was accordingly quashed.” He also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey and others[3], the Apex Court held as under: “In state of UP. V.Gobardhan Lal, while dealing with a matter of transfer, this Court observed that allegations of mala fides must inspire confidence of the Court and ought not to be entertained on the mere asking of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference would ordinarily be made with an order of transfer. That the burden of proving mala fides is on a person leveling such allegations and the burden is heavy, admits of no legal ambiguity. Mere assertion or bald statement is not enough to discharge the heavy burden that the law imposes upon the person leveling allegations of mala fides; it must be supported by requisite materials.” Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent contends that according to Government Memo dated 24-7-1993, office bearers of the recognized service association shall not be transferred from District/Taluq Head Quarters before completion of three terms or two terms. He further contends that there were absolutely no administrative reasons to relax the orders of ban on transfers. Learned Government Pleader for Services appearing on behalf of the State strenuously contends that there is absolutely no political influence in transferring the petitioner. He further contends that the wife of the petitioner, who happened to be a ZPTC member at Asifabad Mandal, made a request to the Government that her husband may be transferred and posted at Wankidi check post, which is very near to Asifabad on humanitarian grounds. He further contends that initially her request was rejected, but, subsequently, considered on humanitarian grounds. He also contends that request for transfer orders made by some public representative cannot be termed as a political influence. He further contends that the Government has got absolute power to relax the rules for better administration. Heard the learned counsel on either side. Perused the order impugned in this writ petition. A perusal of the record goes to show that the petitioner has completed nearly two years of service. The wife of the petitioner, who is happened to be the ZPTC member, submitted an application to the Chief Minister seeking transfer of her husband from Karimnagar to Wankidi Check post, which is nearest place to Asifabad, where she is residing. Initially, her request was rejected, but, subsequently, her request was considered and the petitioner vide G.O.Ms.No.555, dated 10-06-2010 was transferred to Wankidi check post. The only point that has to be adjudicated in this writ petition is whether the Tribunal has committed any jurisdictional error or not. As can be seen from the material available on record, in G.O.Ms.No.147, dated 12th June, 2007, it is mentioned that the relaxation of ban is valid for the period from 1st May, 2007 to 30th June, 2007 and they are only governmental instructions. Any person is transferred during the relaxation of the above said period, there is no infraction of rule or statutory violation and in such a case, no mala fides can be attributed. Learned Government Pleader produced the note file as directed by this Court. On a perusal of the same, it appears that there was nothing on record as to political pressure as alleged by the 3rd respondent. There is no malice in law as well as malice in fact. Taking into consideration the circumstances and in view of the relationship between the petitioner and the wife, who is working as ZPTC member, Asifabad, the representation of the wife of the petitioner, though initially rejected, but was considered subsequently and transfer orders were issued vide G.O.Ms.No.555. Further, the Government has absolute power to relax the rules for better administration and convenience. In the instant case, the transfer of the petitioner has been effected in relaxation of relevant rules and regulations. The Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction and committed error in setting aside the transfer orders. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order impugned is set aside. No costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ________________ K.G.SHANKAR,J rkk Dated: 15-3-2011 [1] (2004)11 SCC 402 [2] 1995 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 214 [3] 2009 8 SCC 337