HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY Dated: 23-12-2009 WRIT APPEAL No. 1476 OF 2009 Between: K.V Rao ... APPELLANT AND Union of India, rep., by its Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, South Sector Head Quarters, CHPT, Chennai and two others ... RESPONDENTS HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1476 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) This writ appeal is filed against order dated 10-12-2009 in Writ Petition No. 26061 of 2009, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. Heard Smt. B. Neeraja Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri B. Venkatadri, learned counsel representing Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents. The appellant is a Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). He completed four years of his stay in Visakhapatnam Port Trust and thereafter, by order dated 30-09-2009, he was transferred to CISF Unit, BHEL (EDN), Bangalore. Questioning the said transfer order, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 23611 of 2009. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court with the direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the appellant based on Circular Instructions dated 11-06-2008. In pursuance of the said order, the Inspector General, CISF (SS), Head Quarters, Chennai considered the appellant’s representation and passed a fresh order on 18-11-2009, confirming the earlier order of transfer. This order was questioned in the writ petition which was dismissed by the learned single Judge, as mentioned above. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a perusal of order dated 18-11-2009 shows that the appellant was transferred as a measure of punishment. According to the learned counsel, the appellant cannot be visited with the penalty of transfer without holding any enquiry. This plea was rejected by the learned single Judge by holding that the respondents have given the reason for not considering the appellant’s stay beyond the permissible period, as provided for in the circular instructions and that it cannot be said that the appellant’s transfer was as a measure of punishment. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge. While the circular instructions provide for consideration of retention of the employees beyond the permissible period on certain grounds which include the education of children studying in Classes 10 or 12, this circular, in our opinion, will not create a vested right in every employee to insist that irrespective of the administrative exigencies, they should be retained till completion of the academic year. The respondents have taken into consideration the fact that the appellant was found to be creating unrest in the unit and, therefore, they have come out with the above mentioned reason for not extending the benefit contained in the circular. The transfer of the appellant was thus effected keeping in view administrative exigencies and we do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that transfer was made as a measure of punishment. While transferring the appellant, his family was permitted to continue in the official quarters till the end of the current academic year 2009- 2010. Thus, the respondents have taken care of the interests of the family of the appellant to see that the education of the son of the appellant is not adversely affected by his transfer. We do not therefore find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the appeal, WAMP No. 3074 of 2009, filed by the appellant for interim relief, is also dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23-12-2009 ks