THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.17017 OF 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the orders passed by the State Government through their G.O.Rt.No.450, Industries and Commerce (Sugar) Department, dated 14-07-2010, whereby the writ petitioner has been transferred and posted as Managing Director, Tandava Cooperative Sugar Factory, Payakaraopet, Visakhapatnam District, and the 4th respondent herein has been transferred and posted in his place as Managing Director, Chodavaram Cooperative Sugar Factory, Govada, Visakhapatnam District. The writ petitioner submits that he was appointed, initially, as Managing Director, Anakapalle Cooperative Sugar Factory Limited, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam, upon selection by the Selection Committee constituted by the Government for the said purpose. Subsequently, he has been transferred and posted as Managing Director, Chodavaram Cooperative Sugar Factory, Govada, Visakhapatnam District, through orders of the Government contained in G.O.Rt.No.58, dated 31-01- 2008, and he took charge as Managing Director of Chodavaram Cooperative Sugar Factory, Govada, Visakhapatnam District, on 01-02-2008. The writ petitioner, therefore, submits that he has not even completed three years of tenure as Managing Director of the Chodavaram Cooperative Sugar Factory. The writ petitioner has submitted that he has worked hard to improve the cane crushing capacity of the Chodavaram Cooperative Sugar Factory and he has also taken care to increase the cane growing area and, against all odds, by sheer dint of hard work, he could achieve stupendous results, resulting in the Chodavaram Cooperative Sugar Factory, earning huge profits, thus, clearing the past accumulated losses. The writ petitioner has also asserted that in recognition of his meritorious service, he has been awarded the Best Efficiency Award at the National level for the year 2008- 09. It is further submitted that the modernization programme of the Chodavaram Cooperative Sugar Factory, Govada, Visakhapatnam District, running into Rs.29-00 crores, is undertaken and this process is now at the tendering stage. The writ petitioner submits that for extraneous reasons and considerations, and all because of political pressure exerted on the Government, the impugned order has been passed and hence, there are no bona fides behind the said order. The writ petitioner in support of his claim, that all because of political pressure he has been subjected to a transfer, has enclosed at page 14 of the paper book, Ex.P-2, a letter by Sri P. Balaraju, Hon’ble Minister for Tribal Welfare & RIAD, addressing Smt. D.K.Aruna, Hon’ble Minister for Small Scale Industries and Sugar, on 20-06-2010, requesting the latter to transfer and post the 4th respondent in his place. He has also enclosed at page 15, Ex.P-3, a letter dated 24.6.2010 by Sri Thota Nagesh, Chairman, Zilla Grandhalaya Samastha, Visakhapatnam, addressing Smt. D.K.Aruna, Hon’ble Minister for Small Scale Industries and Sugar, requesting her to transfer and post the 4th respondent in place of the writ petitioner, on 24-06-2010. The writ petitioner has also enclosed as Exs.P-4 and P-5, at pages 17 and 18 of the paper book, two demi-official letters addressed by the Collector & District Magistrate, Viskhapatnam, to the Principal Secretary to the Government, Industries & Commerce (Sugar) Department, on 20-02-2010, requesting for retention of the services of the writ petitioner till completion of the modernization programme. The writ petitioner asserts that the prospects of monetary gain by certain political leaders all due to modernization of the plant is the reason why he has been replaced. The State Government in their counter affidavit has stated that while it is true that the local public representatives of Visakhapatnam District have sought for a transfer of the petitioner, it was pointed out that the writ petitioner was working as Managing Director on contract basis and since the plant is sought to be modernized involving a financial outlay of Rs.29-00 crores, it would be desirable to have a senior person, like the 4th respondent, to see through the entire process of modernization. It was also pointed out that as desired by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, the services of the writ petitioner have not been disturbed during the cane crushing season, which ended by April 2010. In para 5 of the counter affidavit, it is specifically stated that the Government being aware that there was modernization programme to be undertaken at Chodavaram Cooperative Sugar Factory, had recognized the need for an efficient Managing Director to initiate and complete the modernization programme and on account of the same, the 4th respondent, the senior most Managing Director working in the State, had been transferred and posted. It is further pointed out that the writ petitioner has only one year of service left, while the 4th respondent has got two years of service remaining and as such it was deemed appropriate to appoint the 4th respondent as the Managing Director to see through the entire process of modernization from the stage of tendering process itself. The State Government has also pointed out in para 7 of the counter affidavit that the process of modernization programme may not be accomplished in one-year period. The State Government has asserted that the public representatives making a request for transfer of a particular officer does not necessarily lead to any malicious intent on their part. The 4th respondent, on his part, in his counter affidavit, stated that the writ petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or procedural infirmity in the orders passed by the State Government transferring the 4th respondent in place of the writ petitioner herein and that transfer from one place to another is purely an incidence of service and that the writ petitioner has chosen to make vague and wild allegations and that the various allegations leveled by the writ petitioner are all frivolous and untenable and the writ petitioner has been squarely challenged, though, to trace his source for producing certain demi-official letters addressed by various public functionaries to the Hon’ble Minister for Small Scale Industries & Sugar, which were exhibited along with the writ petition. Insofar as the efficiency factor of service is concerned, the 4th respondent has asserted that his record of performance as Managing Director of the Tandava Cooperative Sugar Factory, Payakaraopet, Visakhapatnam District, is no less distinguished to that of the writ petitioner. At this stage, it will also be appropriate to notice that the learned counsel for the 4th respondent Sri Vedula Srinivas, has tabulated the results of achievements of the respective sugar factories of which the writ petitioner as well as the 4th respondent are incharge and tried to demonstrate that the efficiency of the performance level of both the writ petitioner and the 4th respondent are almost identical and when viewed, in the backdrop of less favourable conditions prevailing, the performance of the 4th respondent as Managing Director of the Tandava Cooperative Sugar Factory, should be credited as carrying greater significance. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent has categorically asserted that, but for the additional feature of electric power generation facility available at Chodavaram Cooperative Sugar Factory, through which source of business profit running into several crores of rupees has been earned by the said unit, the performance of the 4th respondent as Managing Director of the Tandava Cooperative Sugar Factory, can be considered to be equally illustrious. I have heard Sri M.V.Rajaram, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Industries & Commerce and Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent, at greater length. It is no doubt true that the writ petitioner has claimed credit for a turnaround performance achieved by the Cooperative Sugar Factory at Chodavaram, under his leadership. There is hardly any dispute on that count. The District Collector & Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, has gone on record about the efficiency level of the writ petitioner and as to how the special efforts put in by the writ petitioner have paid handsome dividends both by securing optimum cane crushing results as well as an increase in cane growing area. It was also highlighted that in spite of paying additional remuneration to the cane growers and suppliers, the Chodavaram Cooperative Sugar Factory, has produced really wonderful results, which legitimately fetched recognition for the plant at the National level for Best Technical Efficiency Award. Similarly, comparative analysis of the results of the Tandava Cooperative Sugar Factory’s performance under the leadership of the 4th respondent are equally good. Therefore, the contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, that the services of the 4th respondent are no less efficient than that of the writ petitioner, deserves acceptance. Between the writ petitioner and the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent is the senior and incidentally senior- most individual amongst the Managing Directors of various Cooperative Sugar Factories. While the 4th respondent has two more years of service to go, the writ petitioner has, just about, a year to go for his retirement. The modernization programme of the Chodavaram Cooperative Sugar Factory, is in the pipeline with a fairly substantial financial outlay running into Rs.29-00 crores. At my request, the learned Government Pleader for Industries & Commerce, has made available the file relating to rejection of the earlier proposal to transfer the writ petitioner and also the file relating to the present impugned order transferring him out of Chodavaram Cooperative Sugar Factory. It is significant to notice that the Hon’ble Minister for Small Scale Industries & Sugar, has received requests from the Hon’ble Minister for Tribal Welfare for transferring the 4th respondent in place of the writ petitioner on 16-10-2009. On the same day, Sri Konatala Ramakrishna, a former Member of Parliament and former Minister for Commercial Taxes, has also sought for transfer of the 4th respondent in place of the writ petitioner. The demi-official letter addressed by the Collector & District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, on 20-02- 2010, suggesting the services of the writ petitioner to be retained till completion of the modernization of the Chodavaram Cooperative Sugar Factory, is also noticed by the Government. Significantly, Sri Reddy Satyanarayana, former Minister for Animal Husbandary & Fisheries, has also addressed the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 22-02-2010, requesting the latter not to disturb the writ petitioner from Chodavaram Cooperative Sugar Factory, in the interests of the welfare of the sugar factory and all concerned. Significantly, Sri Konatala Ramakrishna, has sent up another letter on 06-03-2010, requesting the Hon’ble Minister for Sugar to retain the writ petitioner at Chodavaram Cooperative Sugar Factory, duly deferring from his earlier letter. Sri V. Vasantha Kumar, Hon’ble Minister for Rural Development, has taken up the issue with the Hon’ble Minister for Small Scale Industries & Sugar, on 09-03-2010, requesting the latter to retain the writ petitioner as Managing Director of the Chodavaram Cooperative Sugar Factory. In this background, the Principal Secretary to the Government has made the following noting in the file on 19-02-2010: “The crushing of sugarcane operation is going on and the season will come to an end by March end, moreover Chodavaram Co-op Sugar Mill Modernisation process is also on. M (Sugar) may take appropriate decision.” Thereafter, the Hon’ble Minister for Sugar desired the Hon’ble the Chief Minister to take a decision in the matter in view of the circumstances stated by the Hon’ble Ministers, Hon’ble Ex-Ministers and the difficulties expressed by the Collector, Visakhapatnam. The Hon’ble the Chief Minister has taken a decision on 13- 04-2010, not agreeing with the proposal to transfer the 4th respondent in place of the writ petitioner. The matter did not stop there, but, however, on 24- 06-2010, the Hon’ble Minister for Small Scale Industris & Sugar, has received another request letter from Sri Kanna Lakshminarayana, Hon’ble Minister for Major Industries, requesting to transfer and post the 4th respondent in place of the writ petitioner. The Hon’ble Minister for Major Industries, has also enclosed the letters written by Sri Botsa Satyanarayana, Hon’ble Minister for Panchayat Raj on 10-06-2010, Sri P.Balaraju, Hon’ble Minister for Tribal Welfare on 20-06-2010, Sri Sabbam Hari, Hon’ble Member of Parliament on 19-06-2010 and Sri Thota Nagesh, Chairman, Zilla Grandhalaya Samastha, Visakhapatnam, on 20-06-2010, to his letter dated 24-06-2010. All the abovementioned dignitaries have requested the Hon’ble Minister for Sugar to post the 4th respondent in place of the writ petitioner. On the basis of these communications, the Hon’ble Minister for Sugar, inter alia, has proposed to transfer and post the writ petitioner to Tandava Cooperative Sugar Factory, Payakaraopet, Visakhapatnam District, in place of the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent be transferred and posted in place of the writ petitioner. It has been specifically mentioned in the note file that when the file was circulated to the Hon’ble the Chief Minister through the Hon’ble Minister for Sugar on the previous occasion, the said proposal was not agreed to by the Hon’ble Chief Minister. Thereafter, the Principal Secretary has noted that the modernization of the Chodavaram Sugar factory is underway. The present Managing Director is involved in that process and the District Collector, Visakhapatnam is very keen that any change of Managing Director at this juncture may upset the schedule of modernization and that the present Managing Director is left with only 1 year to retire. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Minister (Sugar) has made the following note: “The modernization of work is still in tendering process of procurement of machinery, which is in initial stage. The present incumbent is having just one year service. Sri P. Sivarama Prasad is having two years of service and working as M.D. at Tandava CSF., Payakraopeta for the last six years, who is a long standee in the present place. The peoples representatives such as M.P. Visakhapatnam, District Minister (Tribal Welfare), Minister (Major Industries) incharge Minister for the District, Chairman of the District Grandhalaya Samstha, Visakhapatnam, and also the Minister (Panchayatraj) of the neighboring Districts have recommended for posting Sri P.Sivarama Prasad as M.D. Chodavaram CSF Govada, Vizag District by transferring Sri G.V.Ramaiah, M.D. Chodavaram to Tandava CSF., Paykraopeta. Based on the above recommendations the proposal may be considered for approval.” The Hon’ble the Chief Minister has agreed with this proposal on 9.7.2010. Consequently, the impugned order has been issued. The question that falls for consideration is whether the decision taken by the State Government to transfer the writ petitioner and post the 4th respondent in his place is a decision taken in the exigencies of service or all due to the pressure exerted on the State Government. As was noticed supra, the State Government has mooted the idea of shifting out the writ petitioner and posting the 4th respondent in his place. But, however, the matter was considered at the highest level and the proposal has not been agreed to only on 13.04.2010. In spite of such a decision, again a series of requests have been entertained from various dignitaries soliciting the writ petitioner to be shifted out of his present place of work. It is noteworthy in this context that not one of these public representatives and or the Hon’ble Ministers who solicited the petitioner be shifted out of his present place of posting have set out any compelling necessity to do so except requesting the petitioner to be shifted out of his present place of posting. No specific reason has been set out as to why the writ petitioner should be replaced with the 4th respondent. On the other hand, the District Collector and Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, has opined that in view of the modernization programme of the plant at Chodavaram, it is appropriate that the writ petitioner’s services should not be disturbed. The writ petitioner, has obviously rendered good quality services which earned him reward for his efficiency and good will for the policy measures adopted by him which ultimately resulted in well being of the sugarcane farmers. In spite of paying additional support price to the sugarcane farmers, the plant at Chodavaram has earned substantial amounts of profit. While the scenario across the State reveals a decline in the sugarcane crop cultivation area, the Chodavaram Sugar factory has witnessed the opposite of it. There is a substantial increase in the sugarcane crop cultivation area which is sought to be attributed to various confidence inspiring measures adopted by the petitioner. This apart the process of modernization undoubtedly requires an efficient and confident man to be at the helm of affairs. He would not only be able to monitor the progress of the modernization programme, but he will be able to ensure that the same is carried as per the schedules and the entire process is accomplished in a tight time frame limit. A person who enjoys the confidence of his large work force will be able to carry out smoothly, according to the opinion of the District Collector, who is the Chair Person of the Chodavaram Sugar Factory. More importantly, the confidence generated by a man of integrity in the minds of those, who will be willing to part with huge money running into several crores of rupees plays an important role in no small measure. Therefore, to my mind, the State Government failed to address this very crucial question, raised by the District Collector and equally endorsed by the Principal Secretary to the Government while reconsidering its earlier decision taken on 13.4.2010. Its undoubtedly true that a public servant is liable to be shifted from place to place purely depending upon the exigencies of his service. Transfer from one place to another is purely an incidence of service. Organisational interests are paramount. No stigma is attached to it generally. But, however, certain norms are adopted as guiding factors in regulating this exercise by the administration. Illustratively, some of them can be described, such as, persons who are at the verge of their retirement are seldom shifted out of the present place of posting unless asked for by the individual or it is essentially necessary to do so in the interests of the institution. Similarly, unless and until one completes a reasonable period of tenure of three years, generally one is not transferred. Further, when an individual proves his merit and earns all round appreciation, such persons are not disturbed from out of their present place of working unless there are good reasons to do so. Above all, the efficiency of the administration should be promoted by encouraging men of proven ability and whose integrity is unimpeachable. If a person has already proved his merit by earning an award for his efficiency at national level, it is all the more in the interests of the administration that such an individual should not be shifted out, but allowed to carry on the activity further. There is hardly any doubt that the writ petitioner has secured wonderful results. His efficiency has fetched him a reward at the national level. Then should such a person be sent out without any specific reason, merely because a set of public representatives sought for his shift? This leads us to examine the role of public representatives in the matter of public administration. Public representatives obviously carry the trust of the people at large which is reposed in them. In their endeavour to secure the optimum good and serve the cause of the society, better, they are entitled to suggest such measures, which enhance the efficiency of the public administration. Therefore, a public representative is entitled to voice the concerns of the public at large whom they intend to serve. In the instant case, there is no whisper of any allegations against the efficiency or integrity of the writ petitioner which warrant his shift. If the writ petitioner has been turning out satisfactory performance and is able to produce good results, which are getting translated into better benefits percolating to the community at large, then there should have been a stronger reason for shifting such an individual from out of his present place of posting. Such reasons are elusive in the instant case. In such circumstances, it may not be unreasonable to assume that the State Government has subscribed to the desires of several public representatives than weighing seriously the relevant factors, which go into the decision making process in matters of affecting transfers of public servants. It is certainly not for this court to make an in- depth study of what would have really weighed in the mind of the competent authority for affecting the transfer of the writ petitioner. Such a domain is purely reserved to that of the State’s administration. Normally, there is no necessity to record reasons for taking an administrative decision, like affecting a transfer. But, however, when irrelevant considerations or extraneous factors taint the decision, such cases perhaps fall within the exceptions warranting for interference. But, for the decision taken by the State Government on 13.4.2010 to retain the services of the writ petitioner at Chodavaram, there would not have been any occasion for me to examine the reasons that weighed with the government behind the impugned order. In the absence of relevant material which warranted a gravitational shift from the earlier decision, the decision behind the impugned order has therefore got to be recognized as a tainted decision taken jut to accommodate the interests of a particular section of public representatives. At the same time, I am not willing to read any sinister designs into the public representatives demand for the shift of the writ petitioner, during the modernization programme. It might be true that that the modernization programme may not be accomplished in a year’s time and it might require longer period of time than one year to accomplish the same. It might be true that that if the 4th respondent is posted in place of the writ petitioner, he might see through the whole process of the modernization programme. But, it is well to remember that the District Collector has vouched for entrustment of modernization programme to the writ petitioner and hence perhaps the well assessed decision of the District Collector, which was echoed by the Principal Secretary to the Government as well, deserves a deeper consideration. The State Government does not appear to have bestowed enough consideration for vetoing this value based judgment of two senior level functionaries of the State administration. The advice tendered by the District Collector and the Principal Secretary to the Government does not appear to have been weighed properly or correctly in the ultimate analysis. An impression is allowed to gain ground that only because of the insistence of certain set of public representatives, the State Government has taken the decision to shift the writ petitioner. It shall not be forgotten that few other public representatives have sought for retention of the writ petitioner at Chodavaram. In the absence of specific reasons that can be deciphered, this could be an accurate opinion and it could be equally inaccurate, for, normally, while effecting transfers, the State Government is not required to set out any specific reason excepting in rare cases. Perhaps, at that stage, the State Government may not have felt the present case to be one such rare case for it to record any reasons. It is, therefore, appropriate that the matter should be allowed to be reconsidered by the State Government. It should be left to the State Government to specifically consider as to whether the modernization programme of the plant at Chodavaram could be possibly accomplished within one year time or, would it go beyond the same. Depending upon the firm schedule drawn in that regard, perhaps, a final opinion could be expected as to whether the writ petitioner shall be retained at Chodavaram or it woud be advisable that the 4th respondent to be posted in his place. Therefore, I consider it appropriate to remit the matter back for re- consideration. The State Government shall take a decision based upon the aforesaid factor. Till such time the State Government takes a decision, the interim order granted by this court, which enabled the writ petitioner to continue in service at Chodavaram, will hold good. In the view I have taken for remitting the matter back for fresh consideration of the State Government, I thought it unnecessary to deal with the various judgments relied upon on either side on the legal principles governing the scope of a judicial