IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8730 of 2009 Between: Subhash Naik S/o. Ramachandra Naik Staff No. 891401332, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Inspector General, CISF, South Zone Head Quarters, Chennai 2 The Dy. Inspector General , CISF, South Zone Head Quarters, Basanth Nagar, Chennai 3 Commandant, CISF Unit, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. K.JYOTHI PRASAD FOR MR.K.SARVA BHOUMA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in transferring the petitioner from EISF Unit at Visakhapatnam to Singareni Collieries, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner assailed the impugned order of transfer on two grounds, namely, 1) he has not completed three (3) years of service and 2) many persons, who completed more than five (5) years, are retained, while he is transferred. In my view, both these grounds cannot be sustained in law. The law is well settled that transfer is not merely an incidence of service, but a condition of service. Irrespective of an employee having domestic problems, which are common for every person in the society, an employee is bound to obey the transfer order, unless the same is vitiated by mala fides or extraneous considerations. Ordinarily, the employer has got unfettered discretion to transfer his employees according to administrative exigencies. Even assuming that the persons with longer standing are retained at Visakhapatnam, that by itself cannot be a ground to impeach the order of transfer. Though the impugned order does not mention that the transfer is made due to administrative reasons, in the absence of the petitioner pleading and establishing that the transfer is motivated by extraneous considerations, administrative exigencies are presumed. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.11430 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27th APRIL, 2009. kvni