IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 657 of 2009 WP.No. 22309 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 14/10/2008 in WP NO : 22309 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: A. Rama Bhaskar, s/o. Late Suryanarayana, A.P. Grameena Vikasa Bank, Chowduwada, Visakhapatnam District (under orders of transfer to Dammapeta of Khammam District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 A.P. Grameena Vikasa Bank, Rep by its Chairman, Head Office H.No. 2-5-8/1, Ramnagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal. 2 The General Manager, A.P. Grameena Vikasa Bank, Controlling Office, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.D.LINGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: MR.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY The Division Bench of this Court made the following : Judgment follows 2nd page THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 657 of 2009 WP.No. 22309 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The writ appeal is filed against order dated 21-4-2009 passed in WVMP.No. 3846 of 2008 in WPMP.No. 29060 of 2008 in WP.No. 22309 of 2008 by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge observed that transfer is an incidence of service and except in cases of proven malafides this court seldom interferes with such transfers, lest the entire administration will be paralysed and in the context of fact that the writ petitioner has been working in Visakhapatnam district right from the year 1980 when he joined the service and in view of guideline No.5.3 referred to by the respondents, the interim order is vacated and consequently WVMP.No.3846 of 2008 is allowed and dismissed WPMP.No.29060 of 2008. 2. Sri D. Linga Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner strenuously contended that the wife of the appellant is working at Vizianagaram and that his transfer is against the guidelines issued in Circular No.PER & HRD/37/2007, dated 03-9-2007 wherein para 5.8 of the instructions envisages in the spouse case is concerned, they may be posted in the same place or nearby place. According to para 13, the transfer guidelines envisages that Scale-I and Scale-II Officers may be transferred within the district or adjoining districts but in the case of the appellant he was transferred to far of place i.e., Dammapeta of Khammam district, which is about 400 KMs., from the place of working of his wife and thereby the family life of the appellant is deprived to dangerous proportion and therefore, the power of transferring an Officer cannot be wielded arbitrarily. Further the appellant had submitted his representation dated 21-8-2008 seeking transfer him to any of the branches in and around the Visakhapatnam district on the ground of his wife working at Vizianagaram but the same has not been considered. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner also drawn attention of this court that Para 10 of the transfer guidelines envisages that the Branch Managers are to be posted as per their scale to the respective categorization branch but however in the present case, the appellant-writ petitioner who is holding “C” category place is entitled to be posted to “A” category place but the appellant has been posted to “C” category place. The learned single Judge did not consider Para 4 (iv) of Personal Polices of Posting of Husband and Wife at the same station instead the learned single Judge while vacating the interim orders has considered 5.3 of instructions without considering other points i.e., 5.8; 6 and 10 of the guidelines and the learned single Judge observed that transfer is an incidence of service and except in cases of proven malafides this court seldom interferes with such transfers, lest the entire administration will be paralysed and in the context of fact that the writ petitioner has been working in Visakhapatnam district right from the year 1980 when he joined the service and in view of guideline No.5.3 referred to by the respondents, the interim order is vacated and consequently WVMP.No.3846 of 2008 is allowed and dismissed WPMP.No.29060 of 2008. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Uma, representing Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy, the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 denied the appellant’s plea that his transfer is contrary to the guidelines, the respondents placed reliance on guideline No.5.3 which envisages that when the clerk-cum-cashiers are promoted as Officers or Officers to the next higher grade as far as possible, they are to be posted to branches in districts other than the district from where they are promoted and that they have to serve for a minimum period of two years in other district. The learned counsel further submitted that after promoting the appellant from Officer Scale-I cadre to the post of Officer Scale-II cadre, he has been transferred from Chowduvada branch of Visakhapatnam district to Dammapeta of Khammam district in strict compliance of the said provision and that there is no illegality whatsoever. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, as the learned single Judge after examining the guideline No. 5.3 referred to by the respondents, vacated the interim order. Further the representation submitted by the appellant has been disposed of and no representation of the appellant is pending with the respondents. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Ms.Uma, representing the learned senior standing counsel for the respondents, Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy. With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ appeal and writ petition are taken up for final disposal. 6. It is an admitted fact that the wife of the appellant is working as Secondary Grade Teacher in MP.UP. School, Nallabilli of Vepada Revenue Mandal of Vizianagaram district and that his transfer is against the guidelines issued in Circular No.PER & HRD/37/2007, dated 03-9- 2007 wherein para 5.8 of the instructions envisages in the spouse case is concerned, they may be posted in the same place or nearby place. The transfer guidelines No.13 envisages that Scale-I and Scale-II Officers may be transferred within the district or adjoining districts but in the case of the appellant he was transferred to far of place i.e., Dammapeta of Khammam district, which is about 400 KMs., from the place of working of his wife and thereby the family life of the appellant is deprived. The appellant had submitted his representation dated 21-8- 2008 seeking transfer to any of the branches in and around the Visakhapatnam district on the ground that his wife working at Vizianagaram but the same has not been considered in terms of transfer policy of the Bank in Circular No.PER&HRD/37/2007-08, dated 03-9- 2007. In the present case on hand, the appellant-writ petitioner who is holding “C” category place is entitled to be posted to “A” category place but the appellant has been posted to “C” category place. Under the above circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the appellant-writ petitioner to make a fresh representation to the Respondents seeking to consider his case and accommodate him in the nearby district to Vizianagaram district, as per the transfer policy of the bank in Circular No. PER & HRD/37/2007-08, dated 03-9-2007 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On submission of such representation, the respondents are directed to dispose of the said representation by taking into consideration para 5.8; 6 and 10 of the guidelines and also transfer policy adopted in Circular No. PER & HRD/37/2007-08, dated 03-9-2007 and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of such representation. 7. With the above direction, the writ appeal and writ petition are disposed. No costs. _________________________ JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI _____________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 02-6-2009. I s L NB: Furnish CC in two days. B/o. I s L