PADMA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in issuing the transfer order in favour of 4th respondent by issuproceedings No.A- II(2)/505/2018, dated 06.09.2018 by posting him as Mandal Agriculture Officer, Choutuppal, Yadadri District, in the place opted by the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and sought for a consequential direction to set aside the same by considering the case of the petitioner to the post of Mandal Agriculture Officer, Chout Uppal, Yadadri District.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that she has been working as Agriculture Officer at Munugodu Mandal for the last 9 years and in the transfer counselling held on 09.07.2018 and 10.07.2018, she has opted for 5 places and the case of the petitioner was considered against the 5th place of option and she was given posting orders to Bibinagar vide orders dated 06.09.2018. The grievance of the petitioner is that as per the transfer rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.61, dated 24.05.2018, the persons who have put in long years of service at their respective places should be first considered in the transfer counselling and as per the guidelines contained in G.O.Ms.No.61, dated 24.05.2018, petitioner is placed at Sl.No.10 in the list of eligible candidates to be transferred. The petitioner has given first preference of posting at Hayathnagar, followed by Choutuppal Ghatkesar, Bhongir and the last place of preference opted by the petitioner is Bibinagar. However, instead of considering the case of the petitioner in the sequence of places preferred i.e., Hayathnagar, Chout Uppal, Ghatkesar, Bhongiri and Bibinagar respondent No.2 had considered the case of the petitioner for posting her in the 5th preferred place i.e., at Bibinagar. The petitioner further contends that respondent No.4, who is placed at Sl.No.48 as per the seniority list, was given posting at Choutuppal, while ignoring the case of the petitioner to post her in the said place, which is her 2nd place of option. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) Heard Sri J. Kanakaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-III and Sri A. Giridhar Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.4.