Point of law: Postings and transfers of various classes or categories of posts shall be made by the appointing authority or any higher authority. The Managing Director shall with the approval by the Board or Government as the case may be, issue instructions or guidelines from time to time to be followed regarding the postings and transfers.

ORDER :

The present writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to proceedings No.A2/2331/2019/RTLN-37 dated 10.07.2019 issued by the 1st respondent as also the consequential proceedings of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 dated 16.07.2019 and 17.07.2019 respectively, and quash the same, as they are contrary to principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction and to pass such other orders.

2. Heard Mr. B. Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. E.V. Jagannadha Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Work Inspector in the 1st respondent-Corporation in the year 1992 and promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer. At present, he is working in the office of the 3rd respondent. There are no adverse remarks, whatsoever, against the petitioner. On 18.07.2019, the petitioner was served with the proceedings No.A2/2331/2019/RTLN-37 dated 10.07.2019 issued by the 1st respondent transferring the petitioner from Krishna District to Chittoor District. The proceedings No.588/A1/GT/2019 dated 16.07.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent with regard to relieving orders to be effected by the A.N. of 17.07,.2019 were also served on the petitioner. Likewise, on the very same day, the petitioner was served with proceedings in Rc.No.1010/APSHCL/AEs/Estt/NZD dated 17.07.2019 wherein the 3rd respondent intimated that the petitioner was relieved from duty on the A.N. of 17.07.2019 and directed him to report before the Project Director, Chittoor District.

Challenging the above said proceedings, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the main transfer proceedings dated 10.07.2019 as also the consequential proceedings dated 16.07.2019 were served on the petitioner on 18.07.2019 and even before the service was effected, the petitioner was relieved by proceedings dated 17.07.2019. He submits that the 1st respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”) is an independent entity and does not fall under the ambit of Government Departments, and therefore, G.O.Ms.No.45 dated 24.06.2019 and G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 04.07.2019, with reference to which the transfer proceedings were issued, are not applicable to the Corporation. Thus, it is his specific contention that the said G.Os. are applicable to the State Government employees, but not to the employees of the 1st respondent-Corporation.

(i) The learned counsel also submits that the post, in which the petitioner is working, is a District Cadre post and if any vacancy arises, the same shall be filled up by notifying the vacancy, but not by transferring an employee from one unit to another unit. While submitting that the Corporation has to follow the guidelines/bye-laws framed by it with regard to transfer of the employees and reliance on the G.Os. referred to above is therefore not sustainable, he further contends that even if it is assumed, that the said G.Os. are applicable, as the lifting of ban on transfers pursuant to the said G.Os. is for a limited period i.e., up to 11.07.2019, the transfer proceedings issued cannot be given effect to, since the same were served on the petitioner on 18.07.2019 i.e., after relaxation of period of ban is expired. He submits that as the proceedings impugned were served on the petitioner undisputedly on 18.07.2019, that date should be reckoned for all practical purposes. In elaboration, he contends that all the proceedings viz., the main proceedings of transfer dated 10.07.2019 and the consequential proceedings dated 16.07.2019 and 17.07.2019 were collectively served on the petitioner on 18.07.2019, the same therefore would not have any legal effect, inasmuch as the main proceedings shall have to be served at the first instance and thereafter, the consequential relieving orders have to be issued and served. He submits that even before the main proceedings were served on the proceedings, the consequential