The court established that the transfer of the petitioner was a form of victimization and interference in the due course of administration of justice.

( 1 )

( 2 ) THE writ petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging victimisation and male fide for approaching the Court.

( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India vs. Virpal Singh Chauhan, 1995 (6) SCC 684 held as under :-

"even if a Schedules Caste/schedules Tribe candidate is promoted earlier by virtue of rule of reservation roaster than his senior general candidate and the senior general candidate is promoted later to the said higher grade, the general candidate regains his seniority over such earlier promoted Schedules Caste/schedules Tribe candidate. The earlier promotion of the schedule caste/schedule tribe candidate in such a situation does not confer upon him seniority over the general candidate even though the general candidate is promoted later to that category. "

( 4 ) THE judgement was delivered by Supreme Court of India on 10th October, 1995. However, the respondent issued a circular to implement the ratio of said judgement from 30. 1. 97.

( 5 ) THE petitioner challenged the said cut-off date by filing writ petition No. 2118/98 before this Court. This Court quashed the said cut-off date and directed the respondents to implement the said circular from 30. 1. 96 and awarded costs,of Rs. 5,000/- against the respondents.

( 6 ) IT seems that When the direction passed by this Court to treat the said cut-off date from 30. 1. 96 instead of 30. 1. 97 and implement the order of Supreme Court of India was not followed by the respondents then the petitioner filed another Contempt Petition No. 479/ 2001 against the respondents in this Court.

( 7 ) IT is at this stage when the notice of the contempt petition was issued to the respondents and the Court granted four weeks time to file reply to the respondents, before filing reply to the contempt petition, the petitioner was transfer on 8. 10. 2001.

( 8 ) THE case of the petitioner is that several seniors and juniors in the list who are continuously working in Andhra Region as the petitioner nobody was transferred out of andhra Region except the petitioner.

( 9 ) IT is contended before me by the counsel for the petitioner that the transfer is not a normal transfer but it is simply to victimise the petitioner as he has approached this Court by filing writ petition and contempt petition etc. and the transfer tantamounts to put pressure on the petitioner for his act of approaching the Court which amounts to interference in the due course of administration of justice.

( 10 ) ON the other hand counsel for respondent has contended that it was a routine transfer and the petitioner has been transferred in his own region which is permissible under the policy of transfer.

( 11 ) AS a matter of fact when the first counter affidavit in the present writ petition was filed by respondents 1 and 2 on 24. 11. 2001, the respondents did not specifically reply to the ground of discrimination as set out in the petition in paragraph B and C. A specific order was passed by this Court that the respondent must reply to paragraph B and C of the petition, the respondents filed an additional affidavit on 11. 1. 2002. That makes the case of the respondents worse. In the additional affidavit the respondents admitted that there are 25 persons who are seniors to the petitioner and are working for more than 27 years in Andhra Pradesh Region and have not been transferred ( at page No. 38 of the paper book ). In the same statement the respondents have also admitted that there are 34 juniors to the petitioner who are working for more than 27 years in Andhra Pradesh Region and have not been transferred. Along with the additional affidavit another list was appended by the respondents to demonstrate that seniors to the petitioner were transferred.

( 12 ) HOWEVER counsel for the petitioner has contended that the officers whose names appear at serial No. 1 and 2 in the said list are very high in the seniority list that is at number 4 and 5 and none e