IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWELVETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 140 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 28/01/2009 in WP NO : 1028 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: V.Srinivasulu, S/o. Mutyalayya, R/o. Udayagiri, Udayagiri Mandal, Nellore District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Punjab National Bank, Rep by its Deputy General Manager, A.P.Circle Office, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 The Manager, Punjab National Bank, Basinenipalli Branch, Basinenipalli, Nellore District. 3 The Manager, Punjab National Bank, Chittoor Branch, Chittoor, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.G.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: The Division Bench of this (Full text of judgment follows Court made the following : on 2nd page) THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 140 of 2009 J U D G M E N T : (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The writ appeal is filed against the order dated 28-1-2009 passed by the learned single Judge in WP.No.1028 of 2009 whereby he dismissed the writ petition by observing that the relief sought for by the petitioner declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to transfer him from Basinenipalli branch to third respondent branch as illegal is wholly unjustified. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ appeal is filed. 2. Sri G.Krishna Murthy, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that originally the appellant was appointed as an Attender in the second respondent branch in the year 1991 and thereafter he was promoted as Clerk-cum-Cashier on 13-5-2002 in the same branch. Subsequently the said post Clerk-cum-Cashier was upgraded as Head Cashier Category-I with all special allowances as a cashier. Further if the second respondent proposed to transfer the appellant from second respondent branch he has to transfer the appellant only to local branch but not to the third respondent branch as per guidelines of Circular Lr.No.73 of 1983 dated 05-11-1983. As per Clause B (1) of transfer of staff guidelines which consists of I to VII clauses. As per clause B (1), the first respondent has no authority to transfer the appellant from Basinenipalli branch to the third respondent branch, as the second respondent branch is only one branch and the appellant cannot be transferred to the third respondent branch at Chittoor, as the third respondent branch is not a local branch. The learned counsel further contended that as per the guidelines of transfer of staff by Lr.No.77/83, (PD), dated 05-11-1983, members of subordinate staff may not be moved out of station after completion of five years service at a branch and they may be shifted to another local branch if a suitable vacancy is available. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant further drawn attention of this Court that as per clause B(1) in case where employees have completed five years of stay at one office at the same station, where there are more than one branch, they may be replaced by those, who may not completed five years of stay at a particular branch in the same station. In the present case on hand, the second and third respondent branches are not in the same station and therefore, the order passed by the first respondent is illegal and without authority and the same is liable to be set aside. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material placed on record and the circular guidelines. None appeared for the respondents. 5. The facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as an Attender in Punjab National Bank in the year 1991. He was promoted on 13-5-2002 as a Clerk, which was subsequently converted as Head Cashier Category-I. Thereafter, he came to know that the respondent-authorities made a proposal to transfer him from Basinenipalli branch, Nellore district to Chittoor branch. Thereupon he made a representation on 08-1-2009 to the Deputy General Manager, Punjab National Bank, Lakdi-ka-pool, Hyderabad – first respondent to retain him in Basinenipalli branch. Apprehending rejection of his representation, the appellant approached this court seeking mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in proposing to transfer him from the second respondent branch to the third respondent branch as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing the circular referred to in the nature of administrative instructions, it appears that the appellant is working since 1991 onwards and we do not see any reason to interfere with the order impugned in this writ appeal. Moreover, we have examined the circular guidelines relied upon by the appellant. On our examining the circular, it appears that the said circular does not give any right to enforcement, as clause no. 5 may construe “shall”. The writ appeal is devoid of merits and the same shall stands dismissed at the admission stage. 7. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 12-2-2009. I s L