ORDER : The present writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to proceedings No.A2/2331/2019/RTLN-37 dated 10.07.2019 issued by the 1st respondent as also the consequential proceedings of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 dated 16.07.2019 and 17.07.2019 respectively, and quash the same, as they are contrary to principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction and to pass such other orders. 2. Heard Mr. B. Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. E.V. Jagannadha Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Work Inspector in the 1st respondent-Corporation in the year 1992 and promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer. At present, he is working in the office of the 3rd respondent. There are no adverse remarks, whatsoever, against the petitioner. On 18.07.2019, the petitioner was served with the proceedings No.A2/2331/2019/RTLN-37 dated 10.07.2019 issued by the 1st respondent transferring the petitioner from Krishna District to Chittoor District. The proceedings No.588/A1/GT/2019 dated 16.07.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent with regard to relieving orders to be effected by the A.N. of 17.07,.2019 were also served on the petitioner. Likewise, on the very same day, the petitioner was served with proceedings in Rc.No.1010/APSHCL/AEs/Estt/NZD dated 17.07.2019 wherein the 3rd respondent intimated that the petitioner was relieved from duty on the A.N. of 17.07.2019 and directed him to report before the Project Director, Chittoor District. Challenging the above said proceedings, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the main transfer proceedings dated 10.07.2019 as also the consequential proceedings dated 16.07.2019 were served on the petitioner on 18.07.2019 and even before the service was effected, the petitioner was relieved by proceedings dated 17.07.2019. He submits that the 1st respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”) is an independent entity and does not fall under the ambit of Government Departments, and therefore, G.O.Ms.No.45 dated 24.06.2019 and G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 04.07.2019, with reference to which the transfer proceedings were issued, are not applicable to the Corporation. Thus, it is his specific contention that the said G.Os. are applicable to the State Government employees, but not to the employees of the 1st respondent-Corporation. Thus, it is his specific contention that the said G.Os. are applicable to the State Government employees, but not to the employees of the 1st respondent-Corporation. (i) The learned counsel also submits that the post, in which the petitioner is working, is a District Cadre post and if any vacancy arises, the same shall be filled up by notifying the vacancy, but not by transferring an employee from one unit to another unit. While submitting that the Corporation has to follow the guidelines/bye-laws framed by it with regard to transfer of the employees and reliance on the G.Os. referred to above is therefore not sustainable, he further contends that even if it is assumed, that the said G.Os. are applicable, as the lifting of ban on transfers pursuant to the said G.Os. is for a limited period i.e., up to 11.07.2019, the transfer proceedings issued cannot be given effect to, since the same were served on the petitioner on 18.07.2019 i.e., after relaxation of period of ban is expired. He submits that as the proceedings impugned were served on the petitioner undisputedly on 18.07.2019, that date should be reckoned for all practical purposes. In elaboration, he contends that all the proceedings viz., the main proceedings of transfer dated 10.07.2019 and the consequential proceedings dated 16.07.2019 and 17.07.2019 were collectively served on the petitioner on 18.07.2019, the same therefore would not have any legal effect, inasmuch as the main proceedings shall have to be served at the first instance and thereafter, the consequential relieving orders have to be issued and served. He submits that even before the main proceedings were served on the proceedings, the consequential proceedings of relieving orders were issued and the same were served along with the main proceedings and therefore, they are not sustainable in law. (ii) The learned counsel also submits that the transfer proceedings dated 10.07.2019 purportedly issued pursuant to the orders of the Government dated 10.07.2019, are also not sustainable, in the absence of any resolution passed by the Board of 1st respondent-Corporation to seek permission from the Government to effect transfers in the Corporation. (iii) The learned counsel submits that after filing of the writ petition, the petitioner was forced to join duty at Chittoor and thereafter, an interim order was passed on 19.08.2019 suspending the transfer proceedings dated 10.07.2019. (iii) The learned counsel submits that after filing of the writ petition, the petitioner was forced to join duty at Chittoor and thereafter, an interim order was passed on 19.08.2019 suspending the transfer proceedings dated 10.07.2019. He submits that no G.O. in the name of the Governor was issued adopting the Government Orders referred to above in respect of employees of the 1st respondent and therefore, the transfer of the petitioner on the basis of the Government Orders, which are not applicable to the employees of the 1st respondent- Corporation, is liable to be interfered with. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent-Corporation, on the other hand, while reiterating the contentions raised in the counter-affidavit, submits that the Corporation had obtained permission from the Government before effecting the transfers. He inter alia submits that the 1st respondent-Corporation was established for fulfilling the object of the State Government to provide shelter by constructing pucca houses to those living below the poverty line and the entire share holding of the 1st respondent-Corporation is held by the State Government and the Directors of the Board were nominated by the Government. (i) He submits that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.33, Housing (RH) Department, dated 26.05.1998 approving the staffing pattern and General Service Rules of employees of the 1st respondent- Corporation and Clause-6 of the said G.O. provides for general power of superintendence of the Government over the Corporation. (ii) The learned counsel also submits that under Clause-24, which deals with postings and transfers, the Managing Director is empowered to effect postings and transfers with the approval of the Board or the Government as the case may be. He submits that in the light of the specific powers conferred under G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 26.05.1998, issuance of transfer proceedings dated 10.07.2019 cannot be found fault with. He submits that the transfer proceedings were issued purely on administrative grounds, but not by way of punishment and therefore, no relief as sought for can be granted. He also submits that there is nothing wrong in issuing the consequential proceedings dated 16.07.2019 and 17.07.2019 on receipt of the main transfer proceedings dated 10.07.2019 as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He also submits that neither the service of these three proceedings on the petitioner on the same day would vitiate the transfer proceedings, nor the same, in any way, cause prejudice to the petitioner. He also submits that neither the service of these three proceedings on the petitioner on the same day would vitiate the transfer proceedings, nor the same, in any way, cause prejudice to the petitioner. (iii) The learned counsel for the 1st respondent-Corporation also places reliance on Chapter-VIII of the Articles of Association referred to in page No.38 of the material papers, and submits that the Corporation even otherwise, in view of the said provision, is entitled to rely on the G.Os./base its actions with reference to the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, Fundamental Rules and other Government Rules issued from time to time. (iv) With reference to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding posting in a different unit instead of filling the vacancy, the learned standing counsel, while drawing the attention of the Court to para (viii) in page 5 of the counter-affidavit, submits that in Krishna District, as against the required strength of 54 Assistant Engineers, 61 Assistant Engineers are working and therefore, the junior most 7 Assistant Engineers over and above 54 Assistant Engineers were transferred vide proceedings dated 10.07.2019 including the petitioner. He submits that along with the petitioner, two others were posted at Chittoor District and except the petitioner, the other 6 Junior Engineers reported to duty at their respective transferred places, but however, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Learned standing counsel submits that since there is a shortage of Assistant Engineers for effective implementation of the Housing Schemes in Chittoor District, unless the interim orders are vacated, the Corporation would be subjected to great administrative inconvenience. 6. This Court has considered the submissions of both sides with reference to the material available on record. 7. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the 1st respondent-Corporation is an independent entity and G.O.Ms.No.45 dated 24.06.2019 and G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 04.07.2019 are not applicable to the 1st respondent-Corporation. A perusal of G.O.Ms.No.45 dated 24.06.2019 would indicate that the Government issued certain guidelines for transfer of employees for the year 2019 and relaxed the existing ban on transfer of employees for the period from 25.06.2019 to 05.07.2019 to ensure right placement of employees to secure optimum productivity and commitment in furtherance of Government’s development objectives. A perusal of G.O.Ms.No.45 dated 24.06.2019 would indicate that the Government issued certain guidelines for transfer of employees for the year 2019 and relaxed the existing ban on transfer of employees for the period from 25.06.2019 to 05.07.2019 to ensure right placement of employees to secure optimum productivity and commitment in furtherance of Government’s development objectives. Further, vide G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 04.07.2019, the Government issued orders relaxing the ban on transfers up to 10.07.2019 and directed that the ban on transfers shall come into effect from 11.07.2019. 8. Insofar as the staffing pattern and General Service Rules of the employees of the 1st respondent-Corporation is concerned, the Government, while superseding the earlier Service Rules, issued G.O.Ms.No.33, Housing (RH) Department, dated 26.05.1998 approving the staffing pattern and the General Service Rules in respect of the employees of the 1st respondent-Corporation. Clause-6 of the General Service Rules issued vide G.O.Ms.No.33 deals with general power of superintendence of the Government in the following terms : “Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules, the Government shall have a general power of superintendence and control over the administration of the Corporation. Exercise of such power and control shall extend to giving general instructions and directions to carry out the policies of the Government both financial and administrative, including the final interpretation of the rules and such instructions, directions and interpretations are binding on the Corporation.” 9. Clause-24 of the said Rules deals with postings and transfers and contemplates that : “The postings and transfers of various classes or categories of posts shall be made by the appointing authority or any higher authority. The Managing Director shall with the approval by the Board or Government as the case may be, issue instructions or guidelines from time to time to be followed regarding the postings and transfers.” 10. Further, Chapter-VIII of the Articles of Association provides as follows : “Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules where any particular rule is found deficient and insufficient to meet the requirements and demands of any situation in the interpretation and application of these rules, the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, the Fundamental Rules and other Government rules issued from time to time shall be applicable to remove and supplement to the extent of such deficiency or insufficiency of the Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited Services Rules.” 11. A conjoint reading of the above said Clauses as enumerated in the General Service Rules issued under G.O.Ms.No.33 dated 26.05.1998 would make it clear that the Government has general power of superintendence and control over the administration of the Corporation. Further, Clause-24 empowers the Managing Director to issue instructions or guidelines from time to time with regard to postings and transfers, with the approval by the Board or the Government as the case may be. 12. In the light of the above referred Clauses, which forms part of the General Service Rules, conferring the power on the Government of superintendence and control over the administration of the Corporation, and empowering the Managing Director to issue instructions/guidelines with regard to postings and transfers, this Court is of the opinion that issuance of the transfer proceedings dated 10.07.2019 by referring to G.O.Ms.Nos.45 and 49 dated 24.06.2019 and 04.07.2019 respectively and by duly obtaining the permission from the Government, cannot be found fault with. In the light of the language in Clause-24 referred to supra, no resolution of the Board is required as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, nor any separate G.O. is required to be issued. The main transfer proceedings are well within the General Service Rules governing the employees of the 1st respondent-Corporation and the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said G.Os. have no application to the employees of the 1st respondent- Corporation, deserves no appreciation. Accordingly, the same are rejected. 13. The other contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even assuming that the said G.Os. are applicable, the transfer proceedings dated 10.07.2019 are vitiated, since the same were served on the petitioner on 18.07.2019 after relaxation of the ban period up to 11.07.2019 vide G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 04.07.2019 also merits no consideration. There is no dispute that the transfer proceedings dated 10.07.2019 were issued during the period the ban orders were relaxed for the period from 25.06.2019 to 10.07.2019 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.45 dated 24.06.2019 and G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 04.07.2019. It is not the case of the petitioner that the transfer proceedings dated 10.07.2019 were issued with an ante-date. Merely because the transfer proceedings were served on a subsequent date or served along with the consequential proceedings of relieving orders, the same would not be vitiated. It is not the case of the petitioner that the transfer proceedings dated 10.07.2019 were issued with an ante-date. Merely because the transfer proceedings were served on a subsequent date or served along with the consequential proceedings of relieving orders, the same would not be vitiated. In view of the conclusions arrived at supra, that the transfer proceedings dated 10.07.2019 are valid, the consequential proceedings are also valid. 14. Regarding the contention of the petitioner that the post in which he is working, is a District Cadre post and in case any vacancy arises, the same has to be filled up by notifying the vacancy, but not by transferring an employee from one unit to another unit, it is to be noted that the said plea was raised for the first time during the course of arguments. Neither factual foundation was laid in the writ petition nor any material filed to substantiate the same. Under such circumstances, this Court has no option, except to reject the said contention. 15. Further, as set out in the counter-affidavit, the transfer of the petitioner is purely on administrative grounds to meet the exigencies of work. No reply-affidavit is filed denying the contents/averments in the counter-affidavit. The petitioner, admittedly, joined in the post pursuant to the transfer orders, without any demur. It is settled law that interference of the Courts in matters pertaining to transfer is very limited and no case is made out by the petitioner to establish that the transfer proceedings are without jurisdiction or contrary to the rules of the 1st respondent-Corporation, warranting interference by this Court. 16. In the aforementioned view of the matter, this Court finds that the proceedings impugned in the writ petition are valid, legal and sustainable in law. 17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 19.08.2019 passed earlier stands vacated. No order as to costs. 18. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand disposed of.