ORDER : 1. As the relief claimed in all these three writ petitions is identical, as such, learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents advanced common argument. Hence, I am of the view that it is expedient to decide all these writ petitions by common order. 2. All these writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in effecting transfer of the petitioners from their respective schools in different areas of different districts, as per the transfer schedule issued through proceedings of the respondents, in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.54, School Education (Service. II) Department dated 12.10.2020 issued by the respondents, without taking decision for merger of the said schools into their respective Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats, despite addressing letters by the concerned authorities of Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats to the Commissioner, Department of School Education to give management/control over the schools which are under the control of Panchayat Raj Department, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to transfer these petitioners from their schools to other schools outside their Municipal Corporation Limits. 3. The details of writ petitions, present working station of the petitioners, proceedings of Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati fixing schedule for transfers in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 12.10.2020 and details of letters addressed by concerned authorities of Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats to Commissioner of School Education to take necessary action for merging of ZP & MPP schools located/existing in the Municipal limits into Municipal Management with permission from Panchayat Raj Department are tabulated hereunder: (1) (2) (3) (4) S. No W.P. No. Present station of the petitioners Proceedings of Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati fixing schedule for transfers Letters addressed by concerned authorities of Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats to Commissioner of School Education to take necessary action for merging of ZP & MPP schools located/existing in the Municipal limits into Municipal Management with permission from Panchayat Raj Department 1. WPNo.20458 of 2020 Zilla Parishad High School, Satrampadu, Eluru Rc.No.13029/11/2020-Est-3 Roc.No.11036/2/2017-JSEC (2299/2017/J3 dated 21.05.2020 And Rc.No.ESE 02-36/93/2020-CSE dated 10.06.2020 2. WP No.1407 of 2021 Zilla Parishad High School, Nowluru, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District Rc.No.13029/11/2020-Est-3 Roc.No.11036/2/2017-JSEC (2299/2017/J3 dated 21.05.2020 3. WPNo.20458 of 2020 Zilla Parishad High School, Satrampadu, Eluru Rc.No.13029/11/2020-Est-3 Roc.No.11036/2/2017-JSEC (2299/2017/J3 dated 21.05.2020 And Rc.No.ESE 02-36/93/2020-CSE dated 10.06.2020 2. WP No.1407 of 2021 Zilla Parishad High School, Nowluru, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District Rc.No.13029/11/2020-Est-3 Roc.No.11036/2/2017-JSEC (2299/2017/J3 dated 21.05.2020 3. WPNo.1420 of 2021 Zilla Parishad High School, Pernametta, S.N. Padu, Mandal, Prakasam District Rc.No.13029/11/2020-Est Roc.No.11036/2/2017-JSEC (2299/2017/J3 dated 21.05.2020 4. WPNo.20725 of 2020 M.P.U.P.School, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District Rc.No.13029/11/2020-Est-3 Roc.No.11036/2/2017-JSEC (2299/2017/J3 dated 21.05.2020 5. WPNo.20755 of 2020 Mandal Parishad Primary School, Kalyanadurgam Mandal, Anantapuram District - Roc.No.11036/2/2017-JSEC (2299/2017/J3 dated 21.05.2020 6. WPNo.20789 of 2020 Mandal Parishad Primary School, Gallavaripalem, Kandukur, Prakasam District - Roc.No.11036/2/2017-JSEC (2299/2017/J3 dated 21.05.2020 7. WPNo.20808 of 2020 MPP/ZPP Schools, Kurnool District Rc.No.13029/11/2020-Est-3 Roc.No.11036/2/2017-JSEC (2299/2017/J3 dated 21.05.2020 8. WPNo.20816 of 2020 MPP/ZPP Schools, Visakhapatnam District Rc.No.13029/11/2020-Est-3 Roc.No.11036/2/2017-JSEC (2299/2017/J3 dated 21.05.2020 9. WPNo.20924 of 2020 MPP/ZPP Schools, Prakasam District Rc.No.13029/11/2020-Est-3 Roc.No.11036/2/2017-JSEC (2299/2017/J3 dated 21.05.2020 10. WPNo.20937 of 2020 MPP School, Padmavati Nagar, Tirupati, Chittoor District Rc.No.13029/11/2020-Est-3 Roc.No.11036/2/2017-JSEC (2299/2017/J3 dated 21.05.2020 11. WPNo.20942 of 2020 MPP School, Kotakatta Street, Kandukur Municipality Prakasam District - Roc.No.11036/2/2017-JSEC (2299/2017/J3 dated 21.05.2020 12. WPNo.20948 of 2020 ZPP/MPP School, Nellore District Rc.No.13029/11/2020-Est-3 - 13. WPNo.20951 of 2020 ZP High School, Srikalahasthi, Chittoor District Rc.No.13029/11/2020-Est-3 Roc.No.11036/2/2017-JSEC (2299/2017/J3 dated 21.05.2020 14. WPNo.20963 of 2020 ZP High School, Rayadurg Municipality, Anantapuram District Rc.No.13029/11/2020-Est-3 Roc.No.11036/2/2017-JSEC (2299/2017/J3 dated 21.05.2020 15. WPNo.20976 of 2020 MPP School, Nallapadu, Guntur District Rc.No.13029/11/2020-Est-3 Roc.No.11036/2/2017-JSEC (2299/2017/J3 dated 21.05.2020 16. WPNo.20990 of 2020 MPP School, Chapuram Panchayat, Pathrunivalasa Post, Srikakulam District - Roc.No.11036/2/2017-JSEC (2299/2017/J3 dated 21.05.2020 17. WPNo.21013 of 2020 MPP School, Mukthinuthalapadu, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District Rc.No.13029/11/2020-Est-3 Roc.No.11036/2/2017-JSEC (2299/2017/J3 dated 21.05.2020 18. WPNo.21016 of 2020 MPP School, Kapulaveedhi, Pedana village and Mandal, Krishna District MPP School, Kapulaveedhi, Pedana village and Mandal, Krishna District Rc.No.13029/11/2020-Est-3 Roc.No.11036/2/2017-JSEC (2299/2017/J3 dated 21.05.2020 19. WPNo.21024 of 2020 MPP School, Ganapavaram, Guntur District - - 20. WPNo.21038 of 2020 MPP School, Nowluru, Mangalagiri Mandal Guntur District Rc.No.13029/11/2020-Est-3 Roc.No.11036/2/2017-JSEC (2299/2017/J3 dated 21.05.2020 21. WPNo.21069 of 2020 MPUP School, Rayachoty YSR Kadapa District Rc.No.13029/11/2020-Est-3 Roc.No.11036/2/2017-JSEC (2299/2017/J3 dated 21.05.2020 22. WPNo.21082 of 2020 ZP/MPP High School Visakhapatnam District Rc.No.13029/11/2020-Est-3 Roc.No.11036/2/2017-JSEC (2299/2017/J3 dated 21.05.2020 23. WPNo.21084 of 2020 ZPP/MPP School, Hindupur Town and Mandal Anantapuram District Rc.No.13029/11/2020-Est-3 Roc.No.11036/2/2017-JSEC (2299/2017/J3 dated 21.05.2020 24. WPNo.21101 of 2020 MPUP School, Machavaram Kanigiri Nagar Panchayat Prakasam District Rc.No.13029/11/2020-Est-3 Roc.No.11036/2/2017-JSEC (2299/2017/J3 dated 21.05.2020 25. WPNo.21112 of 2020 MPP School, Kalyanadurgam Town & Mandal Anantapuram District - Roc.No.11036/2/2017-JSEC (2299/2017/J3 dated 21.05.2020 26. WPNo.21084 of 2020 ZPP/MPP School, Hindupur Town and Mandal Anantapuram District Rc.No.13029/11/2020-Est-3 Roc.No.11036/2/2017-JSEC (2299/2017/J3 dated 21.05.2020 24. WPNo.21101 of 2020 MPUP School, Machavaram Kanigiri Nagar Panchayat Prakasam District Rc.No.13029/11/2020-Est-3 Roc.No.11036/2/2017-JSEC (2299/2017/J3 dated 21.05.2020 25. WPNo.21112 of 2020 MPP School, Kalyanadurgam Town & Mandal Anantapuram District - Roc.No.11036/2/2017-JSEC (2299/2017/J3 dated 21.05.2020 26. WPNo.21293 of 2020 MPP/ZP School, Guntur District Rc.No.13029/11/2020-Est-3 Roc.No.11036/2/2017-JSEC (2299/2017/J3 dated 21.05.2020 27. WPNo.21307 of 2020 MPP School, Chittoor District Rc.No.13029/11/2020-Est-3 Roc.No.11036/2/2017-JSEC (2299/2017/J3 dated 21.05.2020 28. WPNo.21308 of 2020 MPP/ZP School, East Godavari District Rc.No.13029/11/2020-Est-3 Roc.No.11036/2/2017-JSEC (2299/2017/J3 dated 21.05.2020 29. WPNo.21371 of 2020 MPP School, Nellore District Rc.No.13029/11/2020-Est-3 - 30. WP/21693/2020 ZP High School, Tadepalli Mandal Guntur District Rc.No.13029/11/2020-Est-3 Roc.No.11036/2/2017-JSEC (2299/2017/J3 dated 21.05.2020 4. Since the dispute is revolving around the issue of transfers of teachers who are working in the schools under the control of Education and Panchayat Raj Departments, though the schools are located within the erstwhile village panchayats merged with the Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats, those schools are directly under the control of Panchayat Raj Department as on date and unless the management of the schools is vested with the Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats, the petitioners are not deemed to be the employees of their respective Municipal Corporation(s). Letters were addressed by the concerned authorities of Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats to the Commissioner, Department of School Education for giving control/management of the schools which are situated within the erstwhile village panchayats merged with the Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats and there was no response from the State Government to vest control/management of those schools with the Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats. Therefore, on account of transfer proceedings proposed to be taken by the District Educational Officers of various districts in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 12.10.2020, as it will seriously cause prejudice to the petitioners and affect their right to continue to work within the corporation limits in the event of affecting transfers before vesting management/control of those schools with the Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats, to protect their fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners claimed relief stated supra in all these petitions. 5. 5. The apprehension of most of the petitioners working in the schools as Secondary Grade Teachers or School Assistants or in any other capacity in the schools under the control of Panchayat Raj Department, is that, if the petitioners are transferred to any other school under the control of Panchayat Raj Department, there will not be any chance for them to work in the schools of Municipal Corporation limits, though the villages where the present schools are situated are merged in Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats. 6. Another contention raised before this Court is that, when a particular village panchayat is merged with Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats where the school is located in which the petitioners are working, the entire property of the village, including employees serving in various offices in the village are deemed to have been vested in the Municipal Corporation, in view of Section 16 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1994, thereby, these petitioners working in the schools (ZPP or MPP) which are under the control of Panchayat Raj Department are deemed to be the employees working within the schools under the control of Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats. 7. The last contention raised by the petitioners before this Court is that, the Commissioners of Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats already addressed letters to the State Government for handing over management/control of the schools vesting on the Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats long ago, but the State Government did not take any action, though substantial period is lapsed after addressing letters to the Government and for the fault of the State Government, the petitioners cannot be penalized by transferring them to any other school under the control of Panchayat Raj Department depriving them to work in the schools situated within the Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats limits. 8. The petitioners alternatively requested to direct the respondents/State Government to take action on the letters mentioned in Column No.4 of the table and continue these petitioners to work in the same schools till passing orders in the letters shown in Column No.4 of the table hereinabove and requested to grant the relief as claimed in the writ petitions. 9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, Sri A. Surya Rao, Sri Seshadri Golla, Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, Sri Kavitha Gottipati, Sri T.M.K. Chaitanya, Sri A. Sai Rohit and Sri G.V.L Murthy, on behalf of the petitioners. 10. 9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, Sri A. Surya Rao, Sri Seshadri Golla, Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, Sri Kavitha Gottipati, Sri T.M.K. Chaitanya, Sri A. Sai Rohit and Sri G.V.L Murthy, on behalf of the petitioners. 10. Learned Government Pleader for Services did not file counter affidavit, but advanced arguments on behalf of the Government. 11. Sri M. Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in I.A.No.2 of 2020/proposed Respondent Nos. 9 to 28, filed counter affidavit in I.A.No.3 of 2020. 12. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently raised a major contention that, when the village(s) and it’s employees are deemed to have been under the control of the Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats, in terms of Section 16 of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1994, the petitioners who are the employees are deemed to be working under the control of Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats and that they cannot be transferred based on the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 12.10.2020 and the proceedings issued by the Education Department having control over the schools in the State to any other schools under the control of Education Department and Panchayat Raj Department, as they are deprived of their right to work in the schools within the limits of Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats and such inaction on the part of the State in not taking decision for handing over control/management over the schools located in the village panchayats merged with Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats is illegal, arbitrary and requested to issue a direction as stated supra. 13. Whereas, learned Government Pleader for Services contended that, unless an order is passed by the State Government to handover the management/control of the schools by Panchayat Raj Department and Education Department to Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats, they are not deemed to be under the control of Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats and they are the schools under the control of Panchayat Raj Department and Education Department. It is also contended that, mere addressing letter(s) to the State Government is not sufficient and in the absence of any order passed by the State Government, vesting the management/control over the schools located in the area which is merged with the Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats, they cannot be treated as schools under the control of Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats. It is also contended that, mere addressing letter(s) to the State Government is not sufficient and in the absence of any order passed by the State Government, vesting the management/control over the schools located in the area which is merged with the Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats, they cannot be treated as schools under the control of Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats. Learned Government Pleader drawn attention of this Court to the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, W.P.No.36970 and 37342 of 2013 dated 10.04.2014 and judgment of learned single Judge of this Court in Seelam Raghava Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, W.P.No.25405 of 2020 dated 30.12.2020 and on the strength of the principles laid down in the above judgments, learned Government Pleader for Services requested to dismiss the writ petitions. 14. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: 1. Whether the schools situated in the erstwhile village panchayats which are merged with the Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats are deemed to have been vested on the Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats in terms of Section 19 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1994. If so, whether the employees working in those schools are entitled to claim that they are the employees of the Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats? 2. Whether the petitioners are governed by G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 12.10.2020 and the proceedings issued by the concerned District Educational Officers, as shown in Column No.4. If so, whether the petitioners be transferred to any other schools in village panchayats under the control of Panchayat Raj Department and Education Department? 3. Whether the proposed transfer of these petitioners to schools under the control of Education Department or Panchayat Raj Department located in village panchayats amounts to violation of fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India? If so, whether the proceedings issued by the District Educational Officer shown in Column No.4 of the table mentioned above in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 12.10.2020 be declared as illegal and arbitrary? POINT No.1 15. The petitioners are admittedly working in the schools situated in erstwhile village panchayats under the control and management of Panchayat Raj Department and Education Department. They are situated in the erstwhile panchayats merged with other Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats shown in the table. POINT No.1 15. The petitioners are admittedly working in the schools situated in erstwhile village panchayats under the control and management of Panchayat Raj Department and Education Department. They are situated in the erstwhile panchayats merged with other Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats shown in the table. But, as seen from the Government Orders, merging the village panchayats in the Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats issued under Section 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1994, or under the provisions of the Municipalities Act, certain villages shown in the notification were merged with municipal corporations. But, the schools situated within the erstwhile village panchayats are not vested with the Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats, by any specific order. However, the letters were addressed as shown in Column No.4 for handing over management/control of those schools situated in the erstwhile village panchayats of the municipal corporation to the Commissioner of School Education by State of Andhra Pradesh and those requests are pending with the Commissioner of School Education for taking appropriate action on the letters addressed by Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats. But, a strange contention is raised in all these writ petitions during argument that, in terms of Section 16 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1994, the offices and the educational institutions and it’s employees who are in service of the municipality are deemed to be the employees of the Municipal Corporation, provided that any officer or employee serving in the municipality shall exercise an option and drawn attention of this Court to Section 16 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1994, which deals with vesting of the area covered by municipality on its upgradation as Municipal Corporation. 16. Section 16 is a transitional provision, enabling the employees either to continue to work in the Municipal Corporation on it’s upgradation or to opt to work in any other municipality, giving option to them. Section 16 deals with consequences where a municipality ceases to exist and Municipal Corporation is constituted in it’s place in terms of the Act. 16. Section 16 is a transitional provision, enabling the employees either to continue to work in the Municipal Corporation on it’s upgradation or to opt to work in any other municipality, giving option to them. Section 16 deals with consequences where a municipality ceases to exist and Municipal Corporation is constituted in it’s place in terms of the Act. According to subsection (1) of Section 16, all property, all rights of whatever kind, used, enjoyed or possessed by, and all interests of whatever kind owned by, or vested in, or held in trust by or for the Municipal Council, with all rights of whatever kind used, enjoyed or possessed by the said Council as well as all liabilities legally subsisting against the said Council, shall, on and from the commencement of this Act and subject to such directions as the Government may, by general or special order, give in this behalf, pass to the Corporation. 17. Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 16 are not relevant for the purpose of deciding this issue. However, subsection (6) is relevant to some extent. According to subsection (6) of Section 16, notwithstanding this Act, every officer or employee who, immediately before such commencement was in the service of the Municipality shall be deemed to be an officer or employee of the Corporation. By virtue of this deeming provision, the petitioners are claiming right to continue in the same schools, forgetting the provisos to subsection (6) to Section 16. 18. Even according to these provisions, Section 16 is applicable only in case where a municipality is ceased to exist on it’s upgradation as Municipal Corporation, but, Section 16 has no application to the municipalities by changing their boundaries merging certain adjoining villages by notification. Even to apply Section 16 of the Municipal Corporations Act, an option has to be given to the employee either to continue to work in the municipal corporation on it’s upgradation or to work in any other municipality. But, in the present case, the petitioners are working in the schools situated in the erstwhile village panchayats merged with the municipal corporations. This provision is applicable only to the employees working in the municipality, but not in village panchayat. But, in the present case, the petitioners are working in the schools situated in the erstwhile village panchayats merged with the municipal corporations. This provision is applicable only to the employees working in the municipality, but not in village panchayat. Therefore, Section 16 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1994, will have no application to any of these cases and by virtue of Section 16, it is difficult to hold that these petitioners are the members in the services of Municipal Corporation and they are still under the control and management of Panchayat Raj Department and Education Department, drawing salary from the same department i.e Panchayat Raj Department. As long as the petitioners are continuing as members of service under the Panchayat Raj Department or Education Department, drawing salary and other benefits, they are not deemed to be employees under the Municipal Corporation though those village panchayats are merged by exercising power under Section 3 of the Municipal Corporations Act, unless, the management/control over those schools is vested on the Municipal Corporations by specific government order. Hence, I find no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in all these writ petitions and the contention of the petitioners that they are deemed to be the members of service under Municipal Corporations is hereby rejected, while upholding the contention of the respondents that the petitioners are the members of service under the control of Panchayat Raj and Education Department, as they are being paid by the Panchayat Raj Department till date, no order is passed by the State under Section 16(1) to vest on Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats. 19. Accordingly, the point is answered against these petitioners and in favour of the respondents. POINT No.2: 20. While admitting that the petitioners are still working under the Panchayat Raj Department and the schools under the control of Education Department of the State Government, the petitioners are contending that, in the event of petitioners transfer from present school(s) to any other school(s), much prejudice will be caused to them and they will have no chance to work in the schools situated within the Municipal Corporations and attributed malafides to the State in affecting transfers by issuing G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 12.10.2020 and proceedings by the District Educational Officer mentioned in Column No.4 of the table mentioned above. 21. 21. No doubt, though several village panchayats were merged with the corporations, still the petitioners are continuing as employees of Panchayat Raj Department and appointments have taken place by the Panchayat Raj and Education Department by paying salary to the employees working in the schools, though, substantial period is elapsed in various municipalities. As long as the management/control is continuing with the Panchayat Raj Department over the schools, unless it is divested with the Panchayat Raj Department by vesting the management and control on the corporations, the petitioners are not entitled to claim that they are the members of service under the Municipal Corporations Act. That is the reason for addressing letters by concerned authorities of Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats to the Commissioner of School Education, as mentioned in Column No.4 of the table mentioned above. Therefore, as on date, these petitioners are working under the control of Panchayat Raj Department directly drawing salary from the same department, though overall control is under the control of Education Department. None of the letters addressed by the Commissioners of Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats were considered and no orders have been passed till date. Therefore, no malafides are attributable to the State in view of the financial burden on the Corporations to manage those schools. Hence, the apprehension of these petitioners may be true to some extent, but that by itself is not a ground to issue a direction declaring the action of the respondents as illegal. 22. Similar issue came up before the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (referred supra). O.A.No.3222 of 2011 was filed before Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal challenging the Government Memo No.12720/SE.Ser.III/09 Education Department dated 02.06.2011, proceedings of the District Educational Officer, Visakhapatnam, dated 10-06-2011 and 18-07-2011 and proceedings of the District Educational Officer, Kadapa, dated 07-06-2011 and 23-07-2011 in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.481, dated 13-11-2004 for transfer of teachers and the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dismissed those petitions. Aggrieved by the orders, writ petitions were filed by the employees, raising similar grounds. Aggrieved by the orders, writ petitions were filed by the employees, raising similar grounds. The Division Bench of this Court, referred to earlier decision of this court in N.Lakshmana Rao v. State Of Karnataka, (1976) 2 SCC 502 , wherein it was held as follows: “The Government Order dated April 30, 1971 stated that all employees of the Local Authorities would become government servants with effect from the date of transfer and their conditions of service would not be varied to their disadvantage consequent on their transfer to government control. The government order dated April 30, 1971 further provided that the employees of local bodies and secondary schools would be absorbed in government service only if they agreed in writing to the forms. But the form is meant the form of option. The form of option contained two forms. One was whereby the teachers agreed to be absorbed in government service and the other where the teachers did not agree to be absorbed in government service. Those who agreed to be absorbed in government service stated that the terms and conditions laid down by Government regarding absorption of the members of the staff of local body in government service consequent on the takeover of the local body to the control of Government were gone through and they agreed to be absorbed in government service. The agreement between the Government and the relevant school of the local body provided that the service conditions of teaching and non-teaching employees of the local bodies shall not be varied to their disadvantage consequent on their transfer to government control. As a result of the exercise of option by the teachers of the local bodies they became government servants. The term that the service conditions would be like all other government servants subject to Article 310 (1) of the Constitution. This could mean that under the laws these teachers would be entitled to continue in service up to the age of superannuation. The exercise of option does not mean that there was a contract whereby a limitation was put on prescribing an age of superannuation. It has been held by this Court that prescribing an age of superannuation does not amount to an action under Article 311 of the Constitution. Article 309 confers legislative power to provide conditions of service. The exercise of option does not mean that there was a contract whereby a limitation was put on prescribing an age of superannuation. It has been held by this Court that prescribing an age of superannuation does not amount to an action under Article 311 of the Constitution. Article 309 confers legislative power to provide conditions of service. The Legislature can regulate conditions of service by law which can impair conditions or terms of service. The form of option is the contract. This exercise of option is itself the contract. The option is to be absorbed or not to be absorbed. The contractual term is that the teacher will be absorbed as a government servant. The term n the agreement between the Government and the local body that the conditions of service will not be varied to the disadvantage of the teachers has been read by all teachers who exercised the option to be absorbed. The conditions of service referred to therein are the conditions of service of the State of Mysore.” 23. The Division Bench concluded that, the above decision has no application to the facts of the case because in this case, admittedly no Government order is issued vesting management/control of schools on Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats directing the teachers working in M.P.P. and Z.P. schools to give options to transfer them to the schools under the management of Corporation. In the circumstances of that case, it is held that once an option has been exercised, it would be final because exercising option itself is the contract. Such a situation has not arisen in this case because the Government did not issue any order calling for the options from all the teachers working in Z.P. and M.P.P. schools. Options were called for by the District Educational Officer, not from all the teachers working in the District, but from the teachers working in the schools, which were transferred to the control of Corporation. By virtue of upgradation of Municipality as Corporation, the applicants were working at that time in the schools located in the Gram Panchayats, were merged into Municipal Corporation. By virtue of upgradation of Municipality as Corporation, the applicants were working at that time in the schools located in the Gram Panchayats, were merged into Municipal Corporation. Till the Government issued Government Order calling for the options from all the teachers working in the District and takes final decision, under no stretch of imagination as the petitioners gave options, it can be said that they were brought under the purview of Corporation and rejected the case of the petitioners while holding that the teachers of various categories of the unit have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of transferring them to schools under the control of corporation and dismissed the writ petitions as it is devoid of merits. 24. The issue involved in the above judgment is identical to the issue involved in the present case, but with thin difference. In the facts of the above judgment, the teachers who are working in the schools situated within the limits of erstwhile village panchayats merged with the Municipal Corporations. But, the Government issued Government Order for transfer of employees in the schools working under the control of Education Department. But, the petitioners therein themselves gave an option even before calling by the State and on the basis of their voluntary options; they claimed that they are the employees of Municipal Corporations. But the Division Bench of this Court rejected such contention. 25. In the present case, the petitioners are continuing in the schools which are under the control of Panchayat Raj and Education Department situated within the erstwhile village panchayats merged with the Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats. But, no order was passed by the State to hand over management/control of schools to Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats, as no such option was called for by the Government from the present petitioners. Hence, the petitioners are deemed to be under the employees under the direct control of the Panchayat Raj Department, as they are drawing salaries only from Panchayat Raj Department till date, but not from the Municipal Corporations. Even by applying the principle laid down in the above judgment, the petitioners cannot be deemed to be the employees of Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats. 26. One of the major contentions raised before this Court is that, for the inaction of the respondents/State Government, the petitioners shall not be put to any inconvenience. 27. Even by applying the principle laid down in the above judgment, the petitioners cannot be deemed to be the employees of Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats. 26. One of the major contentions raised before this Court is that, for the inaction of the respondents/State Government, the petitioners shall not be put to any inconvenience. 27. No doubt, several letters were addressed by the Commissioners of Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats to the Commissioner of School Education for handing over the management/control of the schools in which they are working, which were situated in the erstwhile village panchayats merged with the Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats. But, no such action was taken till date. The disinclination of the Government to handover control/management or control is to the Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats by order in writing vide Memo No.ESE02-36/93/2020-GS&GR-CSE dated 22.11.2020 informing all the Regional Joint Directors of School Education and all the District Educational Officers in the State by the Director, School Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, that no action can be taken for merging of schools functioning under Panchayat Raj Department existing in the limits of Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats into Municipal Management, and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim any writ of mandamus, as employees of the Municipal Corporations. This Court also considered an identical issue in Seelam Raghava Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (referred supra) wherein, this Court considered an identical issue and held that, these petitioners are not entitled to claim any benefit claiming to be the employees of Municipal Corporation and liable for transfer. The proposal for handing over management of those schools situated in the erstwhile village panchayats merged with Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats has not taken final shape of decision. Therefore, mere addressing letters by the Commissioners of Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats to Commissioner of School Education is not a ground to grant any relief to these petitioners. 28. The proposal for handing over management of those schools situated in the erstwhile village panchayats merged with Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats has not taken final shape of decision. Therefore, mere addressing letters by the Commissioners of Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats to Commissioner of School Education is not a ground to grant any relief to these petitioners. 28. One of the request made by the petitioners is that, as long as orders are passed by the Commissioner of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, they shall continue to work in the same schools and for inaction of the State Government, the petitioners shall not be suffered, since the petitioners have not completed minimum tenure in the present station for their transfer in terms of the guidelines, such direction to continue these petitioners to work in the present schools till passing of orders in the letters addressed by the Commissioner of Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats to the Commissioner of School Education, cannot be granted, as they are bound by the guidelines issued by G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 12.10.2020. This Court cannot issue a direction to take a decision for merger of these schools with the municipal corporations handing over management/control to the Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats in the present writ petitions. 29. In view of my discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, the petitioners in the present writ petitions, as on date, are under the control of Panchayat Raj Department and while working in the schools under the Panchayat Raj Department, they are drawing salary from the same department, thereby, they are bound by G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 12.10.2020, as these schools are under the control of Education Department for other purposes. Similarly, the consequential proceedings issued by the District Educational Officer shown in the table are binding on these petitioners and consequently, they are liable to be transferred from one school to another school which are under the control of Panchayat Raj Department and under the control of Education Department, subject to guidelines of transfer contained in G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 12.10.2020. 30. Accordingly, the point is held against the petitioners and in favour of the respondents. POINT NO.3 31. As discussed above, the petitioners are the employees, under the services of Panchayat Raj Department, as on date, drawing salary and other benefits from the Panchayat Raj Department. Hence, the petitioners have to accept the transfer when such transfer being the incidence of service. 32. POINT NO.3 31. As discussed above, the petitioners are the employees, under the services of Panchayat Raj Department, as on date, drawing salary and other benefits from the Panchayat Raj Department. Hence, the petitioners have to accept the transfer when such transfer being the incidence of service. 32. Hence, as long as the petitioners are continuing as employees of Panchayat Raj Department drawing salary and other benefits in the schools, while exercising control by the Education Department, they are liable to be transferred in terms of the Government Orders referred above. However, the main contention of the petitioners is that, in event of their transfer from one school to other, in case the management/control is given to the corporations, subsequently, they will be deprived of their right to work in the schools within the Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats. As on date, they have no right in praesenti to claim writ of mandamus. 33. The jurisdiction of Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India is limited and such power can be exercised only certain circumstances which are enumerated in “West Bengal Central School Service Commission v. Abdul Halim, 2019 (9) Scale 573 ” wherein the Apex Court reiterated the following principles of judicial review. “It is well settled that the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over an administrative decision. The Court might only examine the decision making process to ascertain whether there was such infirmity in the decision making process, which vitiates the decision and calls for intervention Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In any case, the High Court exercises its extraordinary jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enforce a fundamental right or some other legal right or the performance of some legal duty. To pass orders in a writ petition, the High Court would necessarily have to address to itself the question of whether there has been breach of any fundamental or legal right of the Petitioner, or whether there has been lapse in performance by the Respondents of a legal duty. To pass orders in a writ petition, the High Court would necessarily have to address to itself the question of whether there has been breach of any fundamental or legal right of the Petitioner, or whether there has been lapse in performance by the Respondents of a legal duty. The High Court in exercise of its power to issue writs, directions or orders to any person or authority to correct quasi-judicial or even administrative decisions for enforcement of a fundamental or legal right is obliged to prevent abuse of power and neglect of duty by public authorities. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law. The test to determine whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record is whether the error is self-evident on the face of the record or whether the error requires examination or argument to establish it. If an error has to be established by a process of reasoning, on points where there may reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said to be an error on the face of the record, as held by this Court in Satyanarayan v. Mallikarjuna reported in AIR 1960 SC 137 . If the provision of a statutory Rule is reasonably capable of two or more constructions and one construction has been adopted, the decision would not be open to interference by the writ Court. It is only an obvious misinterpretation of a relevant statutory provision, or ignorance or disregard thereof, or a decision founded on reasons which are clearly wrong in law, which can be corrected by the writ Court by issuance of writ of Certiorari. The sweep of power Under Article 226 may be wide enough to quash unreasonable orders. If a decision is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could have ever arrived at it, the same is liable to be struck down by a writ Court. If the decision cannot rationally be supported by the materials on record, the same may be regarded as perverse. If a decision is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could have ever arrived at it, the same is liable to be struck down by a writ Court. If the decision cannot rationally be supported by the materials on record, the same may be regarded as perverse. However, the power of the Court to examine the reasonableness of an order of the authorities does not enable the Court to look into the sufficiency of the grounds in support of a decision to examine the merits of the decision, sitting as if in appeal over the decision. The test is not what the Court considers reasonable or unreasonable but a decision which the Court thinks that no reasonable person could have taken, which has led to manifest injustice. The writ Court does not interfere, because a decision is not perfect.” 34. Yet issuance of Writ of Mandamus is purely discretionary and the same cannot be issued as a matter of course. 35. The petitioner also claimed consequential relief of Writ of Mandamus, but such relief cannot be granted as a matter of course as held in “State of Kerala v. A.Lakshmi Kutty, 1986 (4) SCC 632 ”, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a Writ of Mandamus is not a writ of course or a writ of right but is, as a rule, discretionary. There must be a judicially enforceable right for the enforcement of which a mandamus will lie. The legal right to enforce the performance of a duty must be in the applicant himself. In general, therefore, the Court will only enforce the performance of statutory duties by public bodies on application of a person who can show that he has himself a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of a right is the foundation of the jurisdiction of a Court to issue a writ of Mandamus. 36. In “Raisa Begum v. State of U.P., 1995 All.L.J. 534”, the Allahabad High Court has held that certain conditions have to be satisfied before a writ of mandamus is issued. The petitioner for a writ of mandamus must show that he has a legal right to compel the respondent to do or abstain from doing something. There must be in the petitioner a right to compel the performance of some duty cast on the respondents. The duty sought to be enforced must have three qualities. The petitioner for a writ of mandamus must show that he has a legal right to compel the respondent to do or abstain from doing something. There must be in the petitioner a right to compel the performance of some duty cast on the respondents. The duty sought to be enforced must have three qualities. It must be a duty of public nature created by the provisions of the Constitution or of a statute or some rule of common law. 37. Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued merely because, a person is praying for. One must establish the right first and then he must seek for the prayer to enforce the said right. If there is failure of duty by the authorities or inaction, one can approach the Court for a mandamus. The said position is well settled in a series of decisions. 38. In “State of U.P. and Ors. v. Harish Chandra and Ors., (1996) 9 SCC 309 ” the Apex Court held as follows: “10. ...Under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to the performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and the said right was subsisting on the date of the petition.” 39. In “Union of India v. S.B. Vohra, (2004) 2 SCC 150 ” the Supreme Court considered the said issue and held that 'for issuing a writ of mandamus in favour of a person, the person claiming, must establish his legal right in himself. Then only a writ of mandamus could be issued against a person, who has a legal duty to perform, but has failed and/or neglected to do so. 40. In “Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain, (2008) 2 SCC 280 ” the Supreme Court held thus: “The principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated as under in The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies by F.G. Ferris and F.G. Ferris, Jr.: Note 187.-Mandamus, at common law, is a highly prerogative writ, usually issuing out of the highest court of general jurisdiction, in the name of the sovereignty, directed to any natural person, corporation or inferior court within the jurisdiction, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, and which appertains to their office or duty. Generally speaking, it may be said that mandamus is a summary writ, issuing from the proper court, commanding the official or board to which it is addressed to perform some specific legal duty to which the party applying for the writ is entitled of legal right to have performed. Note 192.-Mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. The chief function of the writ is to compel the performance of public duties prescribed by statute, and to keep subordinate and inferior bodies and tribunals exercising public functions within their jurisdictions. It is not necessary, however, that the duty be imposed by statute; mandamus lies as well for the enforcement of a common law duty. Note 196.-Mandamus is not a writ of right. Its issuance unquestionably lies in the sound judicial discretion of the court, subject always to the well settled principles which have been established by the courts. An action in mandamus is not governed by the principles of ordinary litigation where the matters alleged on one side and not denied on the other are taken as true, and judgment pronounced thereon as of course. While mandamus is classed as a legal remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles. Before granting the writ the court may, and should, look to the larger public interest which may be concerned-an interest which private litigants are apt to overlook when striving for private ends. The court should act in view of all the existing facts, and with due regard to the consequences which will result. It is in every case a discretion dependent upon all the surrounding facts and circumstances.” 41. The court should act in view of all the existing facts, and with due regard to the consequences which will result. It is in every case a discretion dependent upon all the surrounding facts and circumstances.” 41. When a Writ of Mandamus can be issued, has been summarized in Corpus Juris Secundum, as follows: “Mandamus may issue to compel the person or official in whom a discretionary duty is lodged to proceed to exercise such discretion, but unless there is peremptory statutory direction that the duty shall be performed mandamus will not lie to control or review the exercise of the discretion of any board, tribunal or officer, when the act complained of is either judicial or quasi-judicial unless it clearly appears that there has been an abuse of discretion on the part of such Court, board, tribunal or officer, and in accordance with this rule mandamus may not be invoked to compel the matter of discretion to be exercised in any particular way. This principle applies with full force and effect, however, clearly it may be made to appear what the decision ought to be, or even though its conclusion be disputable or, however, erroneous the conclusion reached may be, and although there may be no other method of review or correction provided by law. The discretion must be exercised according to the established rule where the action complained has been arbitrary or capricious, or based on personal, selfish or fraudulent motives, or on false information, or on total lack of authority to act, or where it amounts to an evasion of positive duty, or there has been a refusal to consider pertinent evidence, hear the parties where so required, or to entertain any proper question concerning the exercise of the discretion, or where the exercise of the discretion is in a manner entirely futile and known by the officer to be so and there are other methods which it adopted, would be effective." (emphasis supplied) 42. In view of my discussion, the petitioners have no right to continue to work in the same school or to claim writ of mandamus, in view of the future contingencies without any right in praesenti. In view of my discussion, the petitioners have no right to continue to work in the same school or to claim writ of mandamus, in view of the future contingencies without any right in praesenti. Therefore, no writ of mandamus can be issued declaring the action of the respondents as illegal, arbitrary and it does not amount to violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as transfer is an incidence of service, as held by the Courts in the judgments referred supra. Therefore, I hold the point against the petitioners and in favour of the respondents. 43. In view of my foregoing findings recorded in Point Nos. 1 to 3, am of the considered view that these writ petitioners are not entitled to claim any relief, even the alternative relief. Hence, I find no ground to grant the relief as claimed by these petitioners and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 44. In the result, writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. 45. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall also stand dismissed.