THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21705 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is employed as an Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the Andhra Pradesh. The Government issued G.O.Rt.No.541, dated 23.05.2007, deputing him to Tungabhadra Board, respondent No.1 herein, under the A.P. quota for a period of five years. Respondent No.4 was on such deputation through orders in G.O.Rt.No.498, dated 05.06.2004. His five years tenure in respondent No.1 Board expired in June, 2009. However, in the recent past, his deputation was extended. Through proceedings, dated 29.07.2011, The Secretary of the Board, respondent No.2 herein, transferred the petitioner from the service section to the Office of Superintending Engineer against the existing vacancy. In the place of the petitioner, respondent No.4 was posted. The petitioner challenges the order, dated 29.07.2011, on several grounds. He contends that the transfer was affected only to accommodate respondent No.4. It is further alleged that according to the transfer policy framed by the Board, all the internal transfers must be affected, latest by 30th April of every year and the impugned order was passed in violation of the same. Other grounds are also urged. On behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that in a span of five years, a deputed employee has to work for one year in the office of the Board, two years in any post in HW and HLC division and for two years in any post in RB LLC division. The petitioner is said to have completed two years tenure in July in one such division and the occasion has arisen for posting him in the Office of Superintending Engineer, T.B. Dam for a period of one year. So far as the posting of respondent No.4 is concerned, it is stated that various writ petitions filed by him are being dealt with by filing counter- affidavits. Heard Sri J.R.Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M. Ratna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, learned Government Pleader for respondent No.3 and Sri S. Satyan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4. The principal contention urged by the petitioner is that the order of transfer is contrary to the policy framed by the Board. The Board has framed guidelines to be followed in the context of affecting internal transfers. It appears that the Board does not have any independent cadre of its own and the employees are deputed in equal proportions by the Governments of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. The tenure of such deputed employee is required to be five years and that period is spread over in three different categories. The policy mandates that internal transfers shall be completed by the end of April of each year. If the case of the petitioner is viewed in isolation, the transfer would naturally be in violation of the transfer policy. The record, however, discloses that the petitioner was transferred to a particular post in April, 2009 while affecting general transfers. However, on a representation made by him, he was posted to the present position in July, 2009. The petitioner completed his term of two years in July, 2011. He is required to serve the leftover period of deputation in the Head Office. It is in this context, that the petitioner had to be transferred. Posting of respondent No.4 in the place of the petitioner appears to be incidental. Had it been a case of the petitioner being transferred only to accommodate respondent No.4, this Court would have certainly interfered. If it were to be the intention of the Board to continue respondent No.4 at a particular place, they could have done so even without disturbing the petitioner. At any rate, the transfer is from one office to another office at the same place. However, the refusal by this Court to interfere with the order of transfer shall not be treated as declaring the entitlement or otherwise of respondent No.4, as regards extension of his deputation or posting. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, upholding the order of transfer, but directing that the same shall not be treated as expressing any view on the rights of respondent No.4. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:19.08.2011 kdl