IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.17884 OF 2011 BETWEEN: R.G. Surender Reddy S/o. Late R.G. Bucha Reddy …. Petitioner AND The Chief Executive Officer, A.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board, Humayunnagar, Hyderabad and another …. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.17884 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in transferring the petitioner vide impugned Proceedings No.Estt/G1/6840/T&P/2010-11-10, dated 21-06-2011, to Warangal, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this writ petition may be stated a follows: The petitioner joined as UDC in the 1st respondent – Khadi Board and was promoted as Accountant on 01-11-2007 and now working in the Head Office, Hyderabad. While so, the Finance Department issued G.O.Ms.No.93, dated 14-05-2011, relaxing the ban on all transfers with effect from 16-05-2011 to 22-06-2011 and issued guidelines in respect of transfer of long standing employees at a particular station whereunder, if the employee has completed more than 5 years’ of service, he is liable to be transferred. According to the G.O., in case of transfers on the administrative reasons, the competent authority shall submit the transfer proposals to the next higher authority after recording reasons, and the transfers other than on administrative reasons, shall be done by counselling. In the process of counselling, the employee will be asked for three preferences and accommodated in the said places to the extent possible. In the case of the petitioner, the 1st respondent, who is the competent authority, transferred him from the Head Office, Hyderabd to Warangal on administrative reasons, without following the procedure i.e. without submitting the transfer proposals to the next higher authority. The petitioner completed only 3 years of service in the Head Office as Accountant and the 1st respondent without following the uniform procedure and without transferring the other employees, who have longstanding in the present station, effected the transfer of the petitioner. The petitioner made a representation on 25-06-2011, to the respondents stating that his children are prosecuting their studies in Hyderabad and if he is transferred to another place, their studies will be disturbed, and requested to follow the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.93. But, the respondents are not considering the same. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 1st respondent has not taken into consideration the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms. No.93, dated 14-05-2011, with regard to transfer and posting of the employees and for that purpose, the petitioner made a representation, dated 25-06-2011 to the respondents, and therefore, his case may be considered by duly giving an opportunity to him in the counselling. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, opposed the same on the ground that along with the petitioner, 14 other employees have also been transferred by duly following the guidelines, and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the transfer orders. 5. Ordinarily, this Court would not interfere with the transfer order when it is made on the administrative grounds, except when the transferring authority has no authority to pass the order or that mala fides are attributed to it. Government in G.O.Ms.No.63, dated 14-05-2011, framed certain guidelines for effecting transfers and posting of employees of the 1st respondent. To the extent possible, those guidelines have to be followed by the 1st respondent. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that even longstanding employees have not been disturbed whereas he has been transferred though he completed only three years’ of service in the present station. Admittedly, he made a representation, dated 25-06-2011, to the 1st respondent requesting to consider his case as per G.O.93. Therefore, the representation of the petitioner has to be considered following the guidelines framed by the Government. 7. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 25-06-2011, and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J June 28, 2011. KTL