IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6023 of 2009 Between: K.Rohan Kumar S/o.Sri K.Gopinadham R/o. 103, Madhavan Apartments, A.K. Nagar, Nellore. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary - Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner & Inspector General Registration & Stamps, Guntur. 3 The Deputy Inspector General, Registration & Stamps, Visakhapatnam & Guntur. 4 Smt.P.Neeraja S.Kota, Vizianagaram District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the order dt. 17.3.2009 passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No.3900/2009 is illegal & arbitrary and consequently set aside the GO Rt.No.245 dt. 13.2.2009 issued by the 1st Respondent transferring the Petitioner from Kota, Nellore District, Zone-III to S.Kota, Vizianagaram District, Zone-I. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.RAGHU Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES-II Counsel for Respondent NO.4: MR. P. NARASIMHA The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per GM, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the order dated 17.03.2009 passed in O.A.No.3900 of 2009 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, set aside the G.O.Rt.No.245 dated 13.02.2009 issued by the first respondent. 2. The petitioner was selected for the post of Sub-Registrar through Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, and posted at Kota, Nellore District, in Zone-III, whereas the fourth respondent was selected during the same period and posted at S.Kota, Vizianagaram District in Zone-I and are working as such. While so, the first respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.245 dated 13.02.2009 transferring the petitioner from Zone-III to Zone-I in the place of fourth respondent. It is stated in the said G.O. that the said transfer was made based on the representation of the petitioner for mutual transfer. The petitioner states that though he made a representation dated 12.01.2007 for mutual transfer, the first respondent issued the said G.O. belatedly i.e., after two years from the date of his representation. The grievance of the petitioner is that because of the said G.O, his seniority has been adversely affected. Therefore, the petitioner filed O.A.No.3900 of 2009 before the Tribunal challenging the said G.O., but the same was dismissed on 17.03.2009. Aggrieved by the same, he filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner gave a representation to the first respondent on 12.01.2007 seeking mutual transfer from Zone-III to Zone-I, now he is not willing to work at Zone-I because he is well settled at Kota, Nellore District. He submitted that the first respondent ought to have given a notice prior to the issuance of the said G.O. He further submitted that as the petitioner is having an autistic child, who is being treated in Chennai regularly, it is essential for him to stay at Nellore District, which is nearer to that place. He also submitted that the petitioner made a representation dated 02.03.2008 to the Commissioner and Inspector General, Stamps and Registration Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, seeking cancellation of the said transfer order and the same is pending. 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Services-II contended that based on the representation dated 12.01.2007 made by the petitioner for mutual transfer, the first respondent issued the said G.O. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II. 6. It is needless to mention that the transfer is an incidence of service and the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very narrow. The Court can interdict transfer if there is violation of statutory rules and if any mala fides are alleged or established. In the instant case, the petitioner stated in his representation dated 12.01.2007 that his old aged parents and handicapped brother, who are dependants on him, are residing at Kuntikota Village, Mandasa Mandalam, Srikakulam District and therefore, he requested to consider his case sympathetically and transfer him from Zone-III to Zone-I. 7. Since the petitioner himself submitted representation dated 12.01.2007 for mutual transfer, the first respondent issued the impugned G.O. Therefore, the same cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary and we do not find any merit in the writ petition warranting interference by this Court. 8. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. This order does not preclude the authorities in considering the representation dated 02.03.2008 made by the petitioner on sympathetical grounds. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Date:31.03.2009 Note: Issue CC by three days. (Bo) sj