JUDGMENT : A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J. Introductory :- This Writ Appeal is directed against the Order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.20777 of 2023. Appellant is unsuccessful writ petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel on both sides. 3. The Writ Petition was filed with a prayer to issue a Writ or direction, particularly in the form of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Transfer Order of 2 nd respondent/Commissioner of Collegiate Education, vide Rc.No.210/Ser-I-A/Autonomous/2023-19, dated 14.07.2023 and consequent order vide Rc.No.210/Ser-I-A/ /2023-19 dated 14.07.2023 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to law and also to the General Transfer Policy - 2023 vide G.O.RT.No.86 dated 30.06.2023. and violative of articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India and also to direct the respondents to continue the services of the writ petitioner, in respondent No.3/D.K. Government College for Women at Nellore. Contention of the Writ Petitioner and the respondents: 4.(1) [i] The Writ Petitioner is a Lecturer in Telugu, transferred from D.S. Government Degree College for Women from Ongole, Prakasam District and posted as Lecturer in Telugu at D.K. Government Degree College for Women, Nellore. From there he was transferred to Naidupeta, Government Degree College. He was in the capacity of Office Bearer in Government Degree College, Teachers’ Association. Accordingly, he was retained as Lecture, and he was working as D.K. Government Degree College for Women, Nellore for more than (8) years. [ii] As per the guidelines under G.O.Rt.86 dated 30.06.2023, there is exemption for Office Bearers of all the recognised services Associations, to continue in the same place for a period of (9) years, irrespective of the tenure as Office Bearers. [iii] The post of lecturer is a zonal post and the petitioner is working in Nellore, Zone-III. Therefore, transferring to Government Degree College, Naidupeta zone-IV is illegal. [iv] Further, Orders passed transferring the petitioner from Nellore to Naidupeta by way of punishment, is not correct. 4.(2) The department substantiated the grounds for transfer contending that a lady was accommodated in the Women’s college and the writ petitioner was accommodated for a substantial period, and there are even adverse reports against him. Further, transferred place is chosen by the Writ Petitioner. II Findings of the learned Single Judge:- 5. 4.(2) The department substantiated the grounds for transfer contending that a lady was accommodated in the Women’s college and the writ petitioner was accommodated for a substantial period, and there are even adverse reports against him. Further, transferred place is chosen by the Writ Petitioner. II Findings of the learned Single Judge:- 5. Learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition after observing that- 1) Consequent to the transfer orders, the unofficial respondent/respondent No.4 joined the duty and working there. 2) The Writ Petitioner was retained (8) years and (20) days, and also 10 months are completed. Therefore, there is no gain in saying so that he must be retained for (9) years. 3) Transfer can be effected between Zone-III to Zone-IV. 4) The contention that the transfer of the petitioner is in the nature of punishment is in correct and no such circumstances are found. III. Arguments in the Appeal :- For the appellant:- 6. [i] Protection given to Office Bearers of Teachers Association is ignored by the respondents while transferring the petitioner. Learned Single Judge failed to consider the same. [ii] The daughter of the appellant is sick and for taking care of her, his stay at Nellore is necessary. He is also entitled for retention under G.O.Rt.No.86 on the ground of ill-health, mental retardation of the child. [iii] The issue before the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition is whether his transfer is in accordance with the transfer Policy of the Government but the same is not properly considered. [iv] The unofficial respondent assuming the charge is of no significance. [v] The observation of the learned Single Judge that the transfers can be one zone to another zone is incorrect. [vi] The statement of the second respondent in the counter affidavit that there was adverse report from the Principal, D.K. Government Degree College for Women, Nellore against the petitioner, is sufficient to consider that transfer was effected as a punishment. For the respondents:- 7. (1) The transfer orders are justified. (2) The reasoning of the learned Single Judge is based on the material available and does not warrant any interference. IV. Analysis and Consideration:- 8. The ground urged in the Writ Petition or grounds urged in the memorandum of grounds of appeal questioning the transfer, are based on the status of the appellant as Office Bearer. (2) The reasoning of the learned Single Judge is based on the material available and does not warrant any interference. IV. Analysis and Consideration:- 8. The ground urged in the Writ Petition or grounds urged in the memorandum of grounds of appeal questioning the transfer, are based on the status of the appellant as Office Bearer. Learned Single Judge, at para 7 of the impugned orders noted that the writ petitioner has submitted a letter to the Commissioner Collegiate Education, to retain him at Naidupeta on the ground that his child required to undergo medical treatment. This observation is made basing on the assertion made in the counter affidavit of the respondents. 9. A perusal of the copy of letter of writ petitioner/appellant makes it clear that the appellant submitted letter stating that, his child requires medical support, therefore, he has opted Government College, Naidupeta, Tirupathi. 10. One Subhashini arrayed as respondent No.4 in the Writ Petition (unofficial respondent), joined duty on 16.07.2023, pursuant to the transfer orders dated 14.07.2023 and she was transferred from Prakasam District, Nellore District. Here it is relevant to note that the guidelines under G.O.Rt.No.86 relied on by the appellant discloses that wherever a woman employee opts to transfer for a posting in Women Degree College, she shall be posted by shifting a male employee, even if such male employee has not completed two years of prescribed minimum period. 11. The Writ Petitioner (male employee) was working in D.K. Government Degree College for Women, Nellore. In the letter submitted by the writ petitioner/appellant for retaining him, he has simply stated that he is a Secretary of the Association. But other details are not available. The petitioner reported to the D.K. Degree College for Women, Nellore on 11.06.2015. His transfer is in 2023 to Naidupeta. Both Naidupeta and Nellore are in common erstwhile Nellore District. 12. As per the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, Zone-III consists of Guntur, Prakasam and S.P.S.R. Nellore District; reorganisation of Local Cadres is not yet done. The recognised service Association of GCTA-A.P. not appointed/elected members basing on new District. The Naidupeta falls within the erstwhile Nellore District., for which the petitioner was said to have been elected. Therefore, there is no illegality in the action. 13. The recognised service Association of GCTA-A.P. not appointed/elected members basing on new District. The Naidupeta falls within the erstwhile Nellore District., for which the petitioner was said to have been elected. Therefore, there is no illegality in the action. 13. Reply affidavit filed for the same in the Writ Petition, vide para 8 shows that he got tensed and opted Naidupeta under letter dated 24.07.2023 under compelling circumstances and the same does not amounts to waiver. Reasoning:- 14. (1) The writ petitioner admittedly worked at Nellore for more than (8) years. (2) He has submitted letter that he may be posted at Naidupeta. It is relevant to note that the Writ Petitioner is an Office Bearer, in that context, he was under fear, tense etc. are fit to be ignored. (3) In the letter submitted vide seeking posting at Naidupeta, he canvassed about the sickness of his daughter, whereas questioning the transfer orders alleging that he is an Office Bearer and he is entitled for exemption to stay at Nellore. (4) The observation made by the learned Single Judge that there is absence of material in transfer orders indicating that the transfer was effected as a measure of punishment is found convincing. (5) It is settled principle of law that the Courts must be slow in interfering with the transfer orders, unless the same are shown to be malicious, illegal and in violation of any Law, Rules and Regulations. (6) Admittedly Naidupeta, to which the petitioner was transferred, falls within Zone-IV, whereas the Writ Petitioner was working in Zone- III, the post being zonal one, the transfer should have been effected within the zone. Letter of the Writ Petitioner appears to be the excuse, which the respondents pressing into service. The Writ Petitioner, retracting the same and trying to explain the same that, under tense he has submitted such letter. (7) Transfer should have been intra zone, whereas the same is effected inter zonal. On that ground, the transfer shall not stand for the test of the rules. However, justifying circumstances are the request of the employee and his longstanding nature. (8) The Writ Petitioner/employee cannot have lien permanently to claim stay at a particular place; transfer is an incident to employment. The facility to continue beyond certain limitation is a facility subject to the other constraints and administrative convenience. However, justifying circumstances are the request of the employee and his longstanding nature. (8) The Writ Petitioner/employee cannot have lien permanently to claim stay at a particular place; transfer is an incident to employment. The facility to continue beyond certain limitation is a facility subject to the other constraints and administrative convenience. The policy or the power to transfer shall not be autocratic. To have a check and balance on the power, transfer policies are evolved to maintain consistency and uniformity of practice and application. (9) In Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, 1993(4) SCC 357 the Hon’ble Apex Court examined the scope of Courts interference in the matters of Transfer of Government Servants, after referring to Bank of India Vs.Jagjit Singh Mehta (1992) 1 SCC 306 , relevant observations made in para 6 of the judgment, reads as follows: “ 6. An order of transfer is an incident of Government service. Fundamental Rule 11 says that “the whole time of a Government servant is at the disposal of the Government which pays him and he may be employed in any manner required by proper authority”. Fundamental Rule 15 says that “the President may transfer a Government servant from one post to another”. That the respondent is liable to transfer anywhere in India is not in dispute. It is not the case of the respondent that the order of his transfer is vitiated by mala fides on the part of the authority making the order, — though the Tribunal does say so merely because certain guidelines issued by the Central Government are not followed, with which finding we shall deal later. The respondent attributed “mischief” to his immediate superior who had nothing to do with his transfer. All he says is that he should not be transferred because his wife is working at Shillong, his children are studying there and also because his health had suffered a setback some time ago. He relies upon certain executive instructions issued by the Government in that behalf. Those instructions are in the nature of guidelines. They do not have statutory force.” (10) The academic year has already commenced. The Writ Petitioner is working for educational institution is also a relevant argument. However, the questioned transfer of Writ Petitioner being beyond the Zone, the authorities have to consider posting the Writ Petitioner within the Zone, viz., Zone-III, from which he was transferred. They do not have statutory force.” (10) The academic year has already commenced. The Writ Petitioner is working for educational institution is also a relevant argument. However, the questioned transfer of Writ Petitioner being beyond the Zone, the authorities have to consider posting the Writ Petitioner within the Zone, viz., Zone-III, from which he was transferred. Therefore, the appellant/Writ Petitioner is at liberty to make an application/ representation for the said purpose. Result and Relief:- 15. In the result , the Writ Appeal is allowed as follows:- (1) The impugned orders, dated 23.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. No.20777 of 2023 are set aside. However, the appellant/Writ Petitioner is at liberty to submit an application to the authorities (respondent) concerned, within a period of four (04) weeks, indicating his options in the Zone from which he has been transferred viz., Zone-III. (2) Upon such application of the petitioner, the respondents are directed to effect his transfer, within a period of (08) weeks thereafter, by considering his options. In any event, transfer shall be within the Zone-III. (3) As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.