V. RAJAGOPALA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) AN order of transfer dt. 27-5-1995, transferring 1st respondent-writ petitioner to APR School, Vangara, Karimnagar District, vice Smt. A. Bharati, the appellant herein (2nd respondent in the writ petition), who was transferred and posted at APR School (Girls), Hasanparthy, Warangal District, was quashed, by the learned single Judge, by the Judgment in W. P. No. 11227 of 1995, which is under appeal in this writ appeal, filed under Clause 15 of Letters patent.

( 2 ) THE parties are mentioned herein as they are arrayed in the writ petition.

( 3 ) THE petitioner Smt, A. Rama Rani was working as Trained Graduate teacher in Telugu in APR School for Girls, Hasanparthy, Warangal District. Her husband is working as Secondary Grade Teacher at an aided High School at Hanumakonda, Warangal District, which is not a transferable post. She was appointed and posted at Hasanparthy in 1987. Except for a few days, she has been working for over a period of 7 years at Hasanparthy. She was continued at Hasanparthy for such a long time, presumably on the ground that her husband was working near Hasanparthy. The 2nd respondent was working as Trained Graduate Teacher at Vangara since 1992. She requested for transfer to Hasanparthy, as she was suffering from Asthma, since it was closely to the Head Quarters Hospital, Warangal. Her children are studying at hanumakonda, which was only 5 Km. , from Hasanparthy and her husband, who was an officer in State Bank of Hyderabad, was also posted recently at ghanapur, Warangal District. Considering these facts, 1st respondent transferred her to Hasanparthy and the petitioner was transferred to Vangara, in her place. This order of transfer was challenged by the petitioner by filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 4 ) THE contention raised by the Counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition was that the impugned order of transfer was vitiated since it was passed at the request of the 2nd respondent and to accommodate her, the petitioner has been denied a similar opportunity to place before the authorities the circumstances requiring the retention of the petitioner in the same place and that the transfer was violative of the guidelines to be followed that husband and wife should, normally, be posted in the same place.

( 5 ) THE said contentions were rebutted by the Government Pleader appearing for 1st respondent, placing reliance upon various decisions of the apex Court to show that the transfer is an incident of service and is at the discretion of the employer, in the exigency of service and in the public interest and unless the order is contrary to the statutory rules and mala fide, the Court will not, normally, interfere with it. An order of transfer on request will not cease to be in the exigency of service or in public interest.

( 6 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for 2nd respondent, was that as the 2nd respondent was suffering from severe Asthma and Vangara being a place without any medical facilities and working at Hasanparthy, the medical facilities of the Government Hospital at Hanumakonda could be availed, and further her children were studying at Hanumakonda, her son in Intermediate ii year, and as she has been away from her husband and children for the last 5 years, she was entitled for a transfer to Hasanparthy. It is also stated that as the petitioner has been working in Hasanparthy ever since 1987, except for Maternity Leave and short transfer of two weeks, there was nothing wrong in transferring her to Vangara, which was the nearest place available to her and her transfer was already over due as she was staying there for about eight years.

( 7 ) ON these contentions, the learned single Judge held as follows:"it is no doubt true that the transfer has been regarded as an incident of service and that the appointing authority has a discretion in the matter and he is the best judge to decide how to distribute and utilise the serv

Click Here to Read the rest of this document