IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4407 of 2008 Between: G.Suryanand S/o.G.Rama Swamy, Reserve Bank Of India,Hyderabad R/o.H.No.16-108/4/43/6/A, Ramanthapur,Hyd ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Reserve Bank Of India Saifabad,Hyderabad Rep.by Regional Director 2 The Asst. General Manager(Personnel) Reserve Bank of India,Saifabad Hyd .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondents dt.21-02-2008 in so far transfer of the petitioner from Head office of Reserve Bank of India, Hyderabad to Musheerabad Staff quarters is illegal arbitrary and contrary to the transfer policy and staffing pattern of the respondents' Bank and consequently direct the respondents continue the petitioner at Head office as usual in the interest of justice . Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.BHOOMA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.P.UGLE The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was initially employed as a part-time Class-IV employee in the Reserve Bank of India in the year 1984. Subsequently, he was confirmed as a full-time employee, with effect from 12.08.1994. At present, he is discharging the dutie, as a Farash, in the main office of the Reserve Bank of India at Hyderabad. Through orders dated 25.02.2008, the 2nd respondent transferred the petitioner to Musheerabad Staff Quarters. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. Sri M.Ganga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner gained substantial experience in discharging the duties of Farash at the main office and it would be difficult and inconvenience for him to work in a different capacity, though on the same scale of pay. He contends that the respondents transferred the petitioner to the same place vide orders, dated 17.09.2007, but on finding that there is no suitable vacancy there, the order of transfer was not given effect to. He contends that the same state of affairs continues now. Sri M.P.Ugle, learned standing counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that an employee of Class-IV is under obligation to discharge different kinds of duties whenever required to do, and that no inconvenience can be said to have been caused to the petitioner. He submits that the transfer of employees was made in a very objective and transparent manner, and the order does not warrant interference. It is true that the petitioner, at present, is discharging the functions of a Farash, which involves the duties of cleaning of tables and other furniture. However, it is not in dispute that he belongs to Class-IV and Farash is only one of the several kinds of duties. Incidentally, the petitioner is being transferred to a different office in the same city. The mere fact that he has to discharge somewhat different kinds of duties is hardly constitutes any ground to interfere with the order of transfer. It hardly needs any emphasis that transferring its employee is a prerogative of an employer and unless mala fides or similar grounds are urged, the Court cannot sit as an appellate authority. This Court does not find any force in the contention advanced by the learned counsel and does not find any error in the order of the 2nd respondent. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.03.03.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ