BADUGU VENKATESWARLU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Our learned brother dismissed the writ petition of the appellant even at the admission stage itself. In it, the petitioner challenged the legality of his transfer on the ground that it was illegal in the midst of an academic year, and on the further ground that he was transferred only within five months after his recent transfer.

(2.) It is tiue that there are certain G.Os. issued bv the Government that, as far as possible, transfers should not be made during an academic year, and that officers should be kept in their posts for three years. But they are subject to the exigencies of administration and these administrative instructions cannot create a right in an employee to say that he cannot be transferred within three years or in the midst of an academic year. There is no rule which has got the force of law which confers any right on an employee to stay in any particular station for three years, or during an entire academic year. His convenience, has no doubt, to be taken into consideration by the appropriate authority, but that must always yield to the administrative requirement. So we cannot hold that the appellant has acquired any right for staying in this place during the course of an academic year. If any particular inconvenience has been caused, he can make necessary representation to the appropriate authority. That is what our learned brother also has observed.

(3.) We, therefore, agree with our learned brother and dismiss the writ appeal. Writ Appeal dismissed.