JUDGMENT : G.Narendar, J. 1. Heard Sri Md.Saleem, Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Sri G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, Learned G P (S-I) representing the respondents. 2. The parties are referred to as per the nomenclature in the Writ Petition. 3. We have perused the impugned order, wherein the Learned Single Judge has traversed the entire gamut of Law relating to transfers and thereafter has concluded that the order of transfers does not warrant any interference. 4. It is contended by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the impugned order is in violation of the transfer policy and that the petitioner has not completed more than 5 years of service in the same place. He would contend that the petitioner joined duty as Junior Auditor in State Audit Department in the year 2000. Thereafter, he was promoted as Senior Auditor in the year 2006. While he was working in State Audit Department in the office of Assistant Audit Officer, State Audit, Nandyal, Kurnool District, he got transferred to the office of the District Audit Officer, Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, Tirupati District on 01.07.2022. While things stood thus, the 3rd respondent issued transfer orders vide Proceedings in Roc.No.132-VII/C/2023-6, dated 31.05.2023 transferring the petitioner from the office of District Audit Officer, Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati to the office of the District Audit Officer, State Audit, Kurnool. 5. It is the case of the appellant that he having been transferred and posted as Senior Auditor vide order dated 01.07.2022, the order dated 31.05.2023 is within ten (10) months of the earlier order of the posting is in the teeth of G.O.Ms.No.71, Finance (HR.I-PLG & Policy) Department, dated 17.05.2023. A reading of the said G.O would reflect that the State has framed certain principles to be adopted as guidelines in the matter of effecting transfers and postings. 6. It is relevant to extract Para 3 (ii) and (iii) of the G.O, which read as under:- “3. The existing ban on transfer of employees imposed in the references 11th & 12th read above is relaxed for the period from 22nd May to 31st May to ensure right replacement of employees to secure optimum productivity and commitment to furtherance of Government’s development objectives. The existing ban on transfer of employees imposed in the references 11th & 12th read above is relaxed for the period from 22nd May to 31st May to ensure right replacement of employees to secure optimum productivity and commitment to furtherance of Government’s development objectives. (ii) Employees who completed 2 years of service at a station as on 30th April, 2023 are only eligible for request transfers and those who completed 5 years of service at a station as on said date, shall be invariably transferred. (iii) Service in all cadres at a station shall be counted while calculating the period of stay. Station means place (City, Town, Village) of actual working for the purpose of transfers and not office or institution.” (underlining by this Court). 7. From a conjoint reading of Clauses (ii) and (iii) of Para 3, it is apparent that the period stipulated under the transfer guidelines is a maximum of 5 years and the word “station” has been clarified to include every place of posting within the District i.e., be it a City, Town or Village. 8. The additional pleadings reveal that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2000 and posted at the Office at Kurnool, implying that he has spent more than two decades in the same District. In that view, the petitioner would not be entitled for protection under Para 3(ii) and (iii) of the said G.O. 9. Further, it is contended that the petitioner is an office bearer. In this regard, the appellant’s counsel would invite the attention of the Court to the material papers, more particularly, at Page 69 being a Letter Head of A.P. Non-Gazetted Officers’ Association, KURNOOL TALUK UNIT (A.P), wherein the Unit of the Association has issued a letter stating that the petitioner is an office bearer of the KURNOOL TALUK UNIT (A.P) and in this regard he would contend that the transfer guidelines, more particularly, Para 6 clearly stipulates that an office bearer is entitled to a minimum stay of three (3) terms or nine (9) years, in a particular station. 10. We have perused Para 6 of the transfer guidelines, which read thus: “6. 10. We have perused Para 6 of the transfer guidelines, which read thus: “6. The standing instructions on the transfers of office bearers of recognized Employees Associations as issued in Circular Memo No.GAD01-SW0SERA/27/2019-SW, GA (Services Welfare) Department, dt.15.06.2022 will apply i.e., not to transfer the office bearers of all the Recognized Service Associations in the State at State level, District level & Division/Taluk level until their completion of three (3) terms or nine (9) years of stay in a particular station. 11. The fact relevant for appreciation is the phrase “all the Recognized Service Associations” in the 4th line of Para 6 meaning thereby that it would not merely suffice if the Association is at the State Level or District Level or Division/Taluk Level, but, it must be an Association, which is recognized by the State, as recognition alone would enable the Association to represent the employees of the State Government. 12. We have perused the Letter Head/Certificate, dated 22.05.2023. In Sl.No.2 of tabular column of the said Letter, the name of the petitioner is found. He is described as DEC, A.P.NGO’S Association, Kurnool Taluk Unit. In fact, the Letter Head also describes the Association as A.P. Non-Gazetted Officers’ Association, KURNOOL TALUK UNIT (A.P). It does not reflect any proceedings indicating that the Taluk Unit has been accorded recognition by the State Government. This imprimatur of the Government is pertinent, as only then would the Association be able to legally represent the grievances of its members. That apart, the petitioner’s pleadings do not disclose if there are any other members apart from the so called “office bearers” or in other words the membership strength of the “UNIT”. 13. What this Court could discern from the nomenclature used in the Letter Head is that, it is merely a “Unit of an Association” and is not an “Association” by itself, having any independent bylaws or having a standing independent of the registered Association. The objective and purpose of granting such privileges to office bearers, is to enable them to remain grounded and carry forward the activities of the Association, that is, protecting the rights of its members, who by themselves would not be in a position to take on the might of the Executive or the State, be it either financially or otherwise. 14. 14. We have queried the Counsel as to whether any separate recognition has been granted by the State to the Unit recognizing it as an independent Association and there is no material forthcoming from the records, indicating such an approval. 15. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that ‘Recognized Service Association’ has to be read as a ‘Service Association’ that has been accorded recognition by the State and capable of independently representing the grievances of the employees at Taluk level or District level or State level. In that view also, we do not find any material, which should indicate or vouch the identity of the Unit as an independent Association. 16. If the interpretation was to be otherwise, then employees at every Village or Taluk or District level, form “Units” and hold a sham of an election and demand to be considered to be a separate association, when in reality they would not be authorised or in position, in terms of the Association bylaws, to represent the members. The real test of an “Office Bearer” would be if such individual is “capable or authorised to represent the members of Association, at large or the association.” If such a meaning were not to be attached, it could easily pave the way for unscrupulous & manipulative Government employees, to form such “UNITS” and become office bearers in rotation and elect themselves and claim protection under the guise of office bearers and thwart any transfer of “Office Bearers”. 17. In that view of the matter also, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order, which is a well considered order of the Learned Single Judge. In our considered opinion, the appeal is totally devoid of merits and accordingly the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.