THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.12229 OF 2009 Dated: 17.11.2009 Between: A.C. Gangaiah … Petitioner And 1. The APSPDCL, Tirupati, rep. By its Chairman And Managing Director, 19-13-65/A, Kesavayana Gunta, Tirupati, Chittoor Distrit., and 3 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.12229 OF 2009 ORDER : The petitioner herein is working as Divisional Engineer (Transformers) in A.P.S.P.D.C.L., Kadapa. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 15.6.2009 whereunder the petitioner has been transferred from Kadapa to Tirupati as arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned transfer was in violation of the Guidelines dated 27.05.2009 and that apart the procedure adopted by the respondents in effecting promotions to the posts of Divisional Engineers and posting them against the vacancies that would arise on transfer of the existing Divisional Engineers is arbitrary and illegal. The Guidelines for transfers during 2009-10 to the Engineering staff have been issued by the 1st respondent vide Memo dated 27.5.2009. As per Clause (1) of the said Guidelines, the employees completed 3 years period in the present post / those completing five years stay in the present station in the same cadre as on 31.5.2009 are to be transferred. The procedure to be followed has also been specified in the said guidelines. Admittedly the petitioner has been working in Kadapa Circle as Divisional Engineer since 1.7.2005 and thus Clause (1) of the Guidelines is attracted. It is also not in dispute that the Guidelines do not provide for calling upon the employees to give their options before effecting the transfers. However, it appears that the petitioner made a request to accommodate him to the place of his choice and the same was not acceded to by the respondents. The said action of the respondents cannot be held to be contrary to the provisions of the guidelines. Even assuming that the petitioner was not accommodated at a place of his choice the same cannot be held to be illegal since there is no provision under the guidelines which entitles the employees to exercise their options with regard to place of transfer/posting. Even the other alleged irregularity in making promotions to the posts of Divisional Engineers even before effecting transfers cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal in the absence of any express bar under the Guidelines or any statutory provisions. In the circumstances, I am unable to hold that the impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary or illegal on any ground whatsoever. Even assuming that the impugned order of petitioner’s transfer is made in breach of the guidelines dated 27.05.2009, as held by the Supreme Court in STATE OF U.P. v. GOBARDHAN LAL[1], it is not a valid ground for interference by this Court as such guidelines do not confer any legally enforceable right on the petitioners. It is also relevant to notice the following observations made by the Supreme Court in the above decision: “A challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the Courts or Tribunals as though they are Appellate Authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. This is for the reason that Courts or Tribunals cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent authorities of the State and even allegations of mala fides when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the Court or are based on concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surprises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made with an order of transfer.” The law is well-settled that the transfer of an employee is only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment and such an order warrants no interference unless it is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or in violation of any statutory provisions or where the order is found to be without jurisdiction. As noticed above, none of the above grounds could be made out by the petitioner in this writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 17.11.2009 gbs [1] (2004) 11 SCC 402