IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3676 of 2009 Between: Smt.R.Vanaja W/o.Sri S.Kennedy R/o.H.No.22-11-22, woodnagar,chirala Prakasam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Life Insurance Corporation of India., South Central Zone Zonal Office, Hyderabad, rep.by its Zonal Manager 2 The Senior Divisional Manager,Nellore Division, Life Insurance Corporation of India., Durga Milla Nellore 3 The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India Chirala Branch, Chirala , Prakasam District 4 Sri.P.Venkateshwarlu, C/o.The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India., Chirala Branch Chirala, Prakasam district .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the office order No.No.P&IR/C.134/2008-09 dated 21.2.2009 in so fara as tranfering of the petitioner to Addanki branch on promotion as Higher Grade Assistant(Administration) while retaining the 4th respondent at Chirala branch on promotion is illegal, discriminatory arbitrary, and direct the respondents to retain the petitioner at Chirala branch on promotion as Higher Grade Assistant (Administration) and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 3676 of 2009 ORDER: 1. The petitioner joined in Insurance Corporation of India as Assistant on 5.2.1994. Pursuant to the notification issued by the first respondent for filling up of HGA (Admn) and other vacancies by promotion in various divisions, the petitioner applied for one of the posts. She faced interview and found to be successful among other candidates. On promotion, she was posted to Addanki branch. Her grievance is that she is more meritorious than the fourth respondent and therefore, the respondents ought to have accommodated her at Chirala on promotion as Higher Grade Assistant. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is more meritorious than the fourth respondent and therefore she is to be accommodated at Chirala on promotion. He further submits that the vacancy at Chirala has not been notified and therefore there was no occasion for the petitioner to opt Chirala branch on promotion as Higher Grade Assistant. 4. I have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The affidavit does not spell out any rule or regulation, which entitles the petitioner to claim retention at Chirala on promotion as Higher Grade Assistant. The contention of the petitioner that she is more meritorious among the selected candidates appears to be not correct as one Mr.S.Venu Gopal who is figuring at Serial No.10 in the select list is more meritorious than her. It is absolutely within the discretion of the authorities to post the candidates on promotion to higher grade. The petitioner has been accommodated within the district. Therefore, there cannot be any grievance for the petitioner. On the given facts and circumstances of the case, invocation of the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 is misconceived. Though this is a fit case to impose exemplary costs, I am refraining myself to resort to that course. 5. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. __________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 25-02-2009 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}