THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.22653 of 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) The petitioner, who is the applicant in O.A.No.861 of 2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, approached the Tribunal aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent, dated 05-05-2009, in reallocating duties among seven Pharmacists in the Ordinance Factory Hospital. The petitioner is one of the Pharmacists and he claims that he is the senior most Pharmacist and as such allotment of duty as Estate OPD Pharmacist is not justified and he should have been given posting at the main Hospital. The petitioner submits that previously duties at the main Hospital were being given to the senior most Pharmacists, but now under the order, 05-05-2009, he has been asked to work as Estate OPD Pharmacist. The petitioner also states that he made a representation, dated 23-09-2009, to the General Manager against the said allocation of duties. Aggrieved by the inaction, he has approached the Tribunal, with the aforesaid relief, against the order, dated 05-05-2009. The Tribunal considered the matter and on finding that the impugned order only deals with allocation of duties among seven Pharmacists and that there being neither any guidelines nor standing instructions in support of the contention of the petitioner, dismissed the O.A. giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the General Manager by submitting a representation directly for redressal of his grievance. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this court by way of present writ petition. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and we are not inclined to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner, as the first and foremost thing is that the impugned order is not an order of transfer. The decision of the Supreme Court in GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANOTHER Vs. ATMARAM SUNGOMAL POSHANI[1] relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner deals with the case of transfer and it is categorically laid down that in an order of transfer, no Government servant or employee of public undertaking has legal right for being posted at any particular place and the transfer being an incident of service, it cannot be said that legal right of the petitioner is violated. The petitioner is merely posted as Pharmacist in one of the medical stores at the Hospital complex and just because he is a senior most Pharmacist, he cannot seek a legal right that he should be posted at the main Hospital. The allocation and reallocation of duties among the Pharmacists is a matter entirely within the administrative control of the respondents and it cannot be said that the impugned order violates any legal right of the petitioner. The O.A. as well as the writ petition are therefore thoroughly misconceived and in spite of the Tribunal giving liberty to the petitioner to make a representation, the petitioner has once again approached this court by filing this writ petition, being not satisfied with the said concession given by the Tribunal. Therefore, the writ petition is thoroughly misconceived and is liable to be dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dated: 22-10-2009 Prv [1] AIR 1989 SUPREME COURT 1433