IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NOs.551 AND 552 OF 2011 DATED:17.8.2011 W.A. NO.551 OF 2011 Between: P. Pochi Reddy … Appellant And A.P. Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director and others … Respondents W.A. NO.552 OF 2011 Between: M. Nageswara Rao … Appellant And A.P. Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NOs.551 AND 552 OF 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) As the question raised in both the writ appeals is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The appellants – Work Inspectors question their transfer from Warangal Division to Adilabad Division on the ground of violation of guidelines for transfers which could not prevail upon the Writ Court because of absence of any material. Before us, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the post of Work Inspector is a district post and appellants cannot be transferred outside the district. To bring home the point, he has relied upon G.O.Ms. No.908, dated 30-9-1985 which contains guidelines for transfer. None of the guidelines prevents the Government to transfer an employee who has served for twenty years in a particular district as is true of the appellants. As a matter of fact, the G.O. provides for transfer of those who have put in more than five years in a particular place. That apart, the guidelines refer to the Irrigation (Projects Wing) Department whereas the appellants claim to be on the service of Andhra Pradesh Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation which has its own service rules defining posts zone-wise and district-wise. Be that as it may, in the aforementioned backdrop, interference is uncalled for. Dismissed. VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 17-8-2011 B. Narsinga Rao