THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.12206 OF 2004 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner at the relevant time was working as Head Mistress in Mandal Primary School, Yenkepalli, Sadasivapet Mandal, Medak District. One Sri A.G. Bala Nageswar, a teacher, gave a complaint against the petitioner. Thereafter by an order being No.A3/56/2001, dated 28.11.2001, the petitioner was transferred from Yenkepalli to Upper Primary School, Yellaram. Being aggrieved, she approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (Tribunal), by filing O.A.No.910 of 2002. By an order dated 04.11.2003, the learned Tribunal dismissed the Original Application observing that the transfer was made on administrative grounds and therefore, no interference is called for. This Writ Petition is filed against the said order of the learned Tribunal. During the pendency of the Writ Petition before this Court, the petitioner retired. In that view of the matter, nothing survives for adjudication. Nevertheless, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was transferred by way of punishment, which is unsustainable and that the transfer order issued is mala fide; and hence, even if the petitioner is retired, she is entitled for compensation. According to the counsel for the petitioner, a mala fide order of transfer by the competent authority gives a remedy for compensation. These contentions are refuted by the Government Pleader for Services-I. It is axiomatic that the Court of judicial review does not ordinarily interfere with an order of transfer. Transfer is an incidence of service and it is always open by competent authority; subject to any binding rules or guidelines therefor – to transfer a Government employee on administrative grounds. It is also now well settled that an employee cannot be transferred by way of punishment. In this case, the transfer order refers to the complaint given by Sri A.G. Bala Nageswar and appears to be the only reason for transferring the petitioner. In ordinary course of things, it would have been case for review of transfer. But having regard to the fact that the petitioner retired, we do not want to exercise our discretion. Insofar as the compensation is concerned, the petitioner has not taken steps to amend the prayer nor any material is placed before us in this regard. Be that as it is, it is now well settled that only in cases of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India alone, a citizen seek compensation for Constitutional tort. Each and every infraction would not give a cause of action to seek such remedy. A transfer made illegally may be cured by the Court but no compensation can be awarded (Rabindra Nath Ghosal v University of Calcutta[1] and Hindustan Paper Corpn. Ltd. v Ananta Bhattacharjee[2]). For the above reasons, the Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ___________________ (K.G.SHANKAR, J) 12th October 2011 RRB [1] (2002) 7 SCC 478 = AIR 2002 SC 3560 [2] (2004) 6 SCC 213