S.Umarani v. Controller Of Legal Metrology

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.1592 of 2018 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sri Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellantwrit petitioner. 2.

The writ petitioner, who is working as a District Legal Metrology Officer, was posted on transfer to Medchal as per proceedings dated 11.10.2016. The Government had lifted the ban on transfers and consequently, the Department held exercise of counselling in relation to proposed transfers. The petitioner had given Karimnagar as her last option. Yet, she was transferred to Karimnagar.

She again moved a representation and moved this Court as well.

That representation was thereafter considered and she has been posted in Hyderabad, where her husband works in a Private Engineering College. This was impeached before the learned Single Judge on the ground that the transfer is made ignoring the ban order of Government and also without following norms. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition holding that the Department has considered the material and grievance advanced by the petitioner insofar as her transfer to Karimnagar is concerned.

3.

Hearing the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, we see no grounds to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. We say this for reasons more than one. Firstly, transfer is an incidence of service. It is not a condition of

service. The impugned order of transfer is a routine matter and not a stigmatic one. The transfer was ordered after the ban order on transfers was lifted by the Government. Counselling was carried out and initially the appellant was posted in Karimnagar. That has been modified and the petitioner has been posted in Hyderabad where her husband works.

4.

All things apart, the fact of the matter remains that the personal grievance attempted to be projected by the petitioner has also been taken into consideration. No one has vested right to work in a particular place of one's own choice. We see no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

5.

The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________________________ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, CJ ___________________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J Date: 13.03.2019 va