ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: “.....to issue Writ, Order or Direction one more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus: a. Declaring the action of the Respondents more specifically Respondent No. 2 to 4 in conducting the process of transfers, including the counselling, in violation of G.O. Ms. No. 80 dated 03.07.2024 issued by Respondent No.1 as being bad, arbitrary, illegal and violative of article 14, 16, 19 & 21 of constitution. b. Consequentially direct the Respondent No. 2 to 6 to not affect the transfers of the Petitioner as per counselling conducted on 18.07.2024....” 2. Heard Sri R. Anurag, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Additional Advocate General, on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5, and Sri A. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is presently discharging her duties as Professor, Pediatrics in respondent No.6 Hospital. While so, respondent No.1 issued G.O.Ms.No.80 dated 03.07.2024, duly notifying the transfer and posting of employees by lifting the ban on transfer orders, and according to the said G.O., the transfers were to be affected between 05.07.2024 and 20.07.2024. The said G.O. reads that only 40% of the working cadre strength would be considered for the purpose of transfer and accordingly, a list of persons who shall be compulsorily transferred should be communicated through the official portal, duly indicating the details of the said personnel along with the period for which, the said persons have been serving in the same station/posting. Further, the employees to be compulsorily transferred have to exercise their option of preferences and to avail any other exemption under the said G.O. 3.1. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s name was not included in the said compulsory transferable list that was circulated and uploaded on the official website. As such, the petitioner did not exercise her option for transfer. While that being so, on 16.07.2024 and 17.07.2024, respondent No.4, in a high-hand and illegal manner, issued a circular calling for the entire cadre of professors to attend the transfer counseling session on 18.07.2024, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.80. As such, the petitioner did not exercise her option for transfer. While that being so, on 16.07.2024 and 17.07.2024, respondent No.4, in a high-hand and illegal manner, issued a circular calling for the entire cadre of professors to attend the transfer counseling session on 18.07.2024, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.80. As such, the said action of the respondents in issuing the said circular on the eleventh-hour itself would clearly show that there is a mala fide intention on the part of the department, and only to favour a few persons and to safeguard their men, the said circular was issued. It is further submitted that for any process to be considered as free and fair, sufficient amount of time ought to have been given to the candidates, so as to exercise their preferences of the posting or places, to effectively conduct their duties. However, the said process has been completely thrown to air by the respondents, who never followed the process of putting the petitioner on prior notice and have proceeded with conducting the counseling process and concluded it on 18.07.2024, by transferring the petitioner to M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal, without extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.No.80, for special circumstances under medical and spouse grounds. Further, the process of exercising options or preferences was not followed in its true letter and spirit, thereby, depriving the petitioner an opportunity for filling the application form as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.80, and as such, she was denied an opportunity to exercise her options, along with others, to opt for the place of transfer and avail any other criteria for transfer as per G.O.Ms.No.80. Therefore, on the ground of discrimination and unequal opportunity, the irregular transfer counseling process is liable to be set aside. 3.2 It is further submitted that the exemptions available under G.O.Ms.No.80 dated 03.07.2024 were being wrongly claimed and considered of those persons who are not the office bearers and even assuming that their claims are genuine, the verification process could not have been completed within 24 hours. As such, the transfer process adopted by respondent Nos.2 to 4 suffers from extreme illegality. Further, posting a list of compulsory transferable personnel and conducting the counseling by ignoring the said list at their own will and wish, without affording an opportunity of raising objections amounts to a violation of principles of natural justice and is liable to be interfered with by this Court. Further, posting a list of compulsory transferable personnel and conducting the counseling by ignoring the said list at their own will and wish, without affording an opportunity of raising objections amounts to a violation of principles of natural justice and is liable to be interfered with by this Court. It is further submitted that the cadre strength of the department of pediatrics consists of sixty three posts, and as such, going by G.O.Ms.No.80 dated 03.07.2024, only 40% of the total strength should have been called for counseling by following compulsory transfer list released by respondent No.4. However, the circular issued by respondent No.4 goes contrary to G.O.Ms.No.80 dated 03.07.2024, wherein, the entire cadre strength was called for transfer counseling. As such, on this ground also, the transfer process is liable to be set aside. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the present writ petition. 4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that the Government has issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.80 dated 03.07.2024, lifting ban on transfers from 05.07.2024 to 20.07.2024, and subsequently, extension orders were issued in G.O.Ms.No.85 dated 20.07.2024, extending the same till 30.07.2024. As per paragraph 4 (B) of G.O.Ms.No.80 dated 03.07.2024, no person shall be retained beyond four years of service in a particular station as on 30.06.2024. However, the employees retiring on before 30.06.2025 shall not be transferred, even if they complete four years of service, unless he or she opts for a transfer. Further, as per paragraph 6(B), station means place (city, town, village) of actual working for the purpose of transfers and not office (or) institution. 4.1 It is further submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.80 dated 03.07.2024, a list of long-standing employees who have completed four years and above as on 30.06.2024, along with request transfers, has been prepared in category of Professor in the specialty of Pediatrics and it was found that there are twenty three candidates who have completed four years and above of service, including the petitioner, and their names were enlisted in the list of long-standing employees liable for compulsory transfer in the Professor cadre, wherein, the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.19. The petitioner, along with other doctors, was called for counseling vide circulars dated 16.07.2024 and 17.07.2024, and they attended the same on 18.07.2024 wherein the petitioner opted her choice for place of posting at M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal, and also signed in the counseling sheet also. 4.2 It is further submitted that three doctors have submitted their office bearer certificates for exemption from General Transfers 2024. They are the office bearers of the Telangana Government Doctors Association, having been elected for the term 2024-26. The Committee constituted for transfer and posting of employees as per G.O.Ms.No.27 dated 06.07.2024, has conducted the counseling on 18.07.2024, and after verifying and examining the office bearers certificates submitted by the those three Professors as per the guidelines issued in Circular Memo.No.20914/SWI/A2/2012-1 and Circular Memo.No.20914/SWI/ A2/2012-2 dated 30.06.2012, and also Government Memo.No.2550623- A/206/A1/HRM.1/2024-1 dated 12.07.2024, the Committee decided to exempt those three doctors shown at Sl.Nos.7, 10 and 11, who are in the Department of Pediatrics in the post of Professor of Pediatrics, from the General Transfers 2024. As such, there is no deviation from the above rules. 4.3 It is further submitted that the petitioner’s name was included in the long-standing list as per the station seniority, as she has completed six years two months of service in the present station in all cadres. Accordingly, the Government issued transfer orders to the eighteen Professors in the Pediatrics Department who have attended the transfer counseling and opted for place of posting during the counseling, including the petitioner herein, who has been transferred to M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal. As such, there is no illegality in the conduct of transfer counseling and issuance of posting orders. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.7 submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.411 dated 31.07.2012, the Telangana Doctors Association has been recognized by the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh, and the Government also issued Memos dated 26.06.2012 and 30.06.2012, granting the benefit of exemption from transfers to all the office bearers of the recognized associations, for a period of six years. Subsequently, after formation of the state of Telangana, the Government issued Memo dated 11.06.2018, duly extending the recognition by the Government of Telangana. Subsequently, after formation of the state of Telangana, the Government issued Memo dated 11.06.2018, duly extending the recognition by the Government of Telangana. It is further submitted that no election were conducted after 2018, and for the first time, in pursuance of the directions of this Court dated 25.11.2022 in W.P.Nos.26896 and 38614 of 2022, the learned Advocate Commissioners conducted the elections of the Association at the central office level in respect of all units on 29.04.2024, in a fair and transparent manner. Thereafter, the results were declared on 16.05.2024, whereby, respondent No.7 was elected as the President of Telangana Doctors Association. Therefore, respondent No.7 and the other office bearers of the Association are entitled for exemption from transfers despite their completing more than four years of service at a particular station i.e., at respondent No.6 Hospital. As such, his name was excluded from the transfer counselling list and he, along with the two employees who are the office bearers of the Telangana Doctors Association, were not subjected to transfer. 6. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties. 7. To adjudicate the lis, this Court feels it necessary to refer/extract relevant portions of the guidelines issued by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.80, dated 03.07.2024, to be followed while effecting transfers. a) Para 4 (B) states that no person shall be retained beyond 4 years of service in a particular station as on 30th June, 2024. However, the employees who are retiring before 30 th June, 2025 shall not be transferred even if they have completed four years of service, unless they make a specific request for their transfer. b) Para 4 (C) states to ensure that there is no dislocation of the work, not more than 40% of the employees in any manner shall be transferred. c) Para 7 stipulates the procedure for transfers: i) The HoDs/Competent Authority shall publish the list of incumbents working category wise and cadre wise, in all units under their jurisdiction, along with place and duration. ii) Similarly, all clear vacancies shall also be published before seeking options from the employees. iii) The Competent Authority shall publish a list of employees to be compulsorily transferred. iv) The Competent Authority may obtain upto five options for preferential places of transfers from the employees in the prescribed proforma in Annexure-II. ii) Similarly, all clear vacancies shall also be published before seeking options from the employees. iii) The Competent Authority shall publish a list of employees to be compulsorily transferred. iv) The Competent Authority may obtain upto five options for preferential places of transfers from the employees in the prescribed proforma in Annexure-II. However, the Departments may modify the proforma according to their specific requirements. vii) To ensure transparency, all the notifications shall be published online or on the office notice board. 8. As can be seen from the record, pursuant to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.80, dated 03.07.2024, respondent No.4 had prepared department-wise Compulsory Transfer List. Insofar as Pediatrics Department, to which the petitioner belongs to, is concerned, the cadre strength of the said Department is 63 and working strength is 44, out of whom, 23 candidates in Pediatrics Department including petitioner have completed the service of four years and above. Out of them, the respondents have identified 40% of the working strength i.e. 18 persons, who are having longstanding service at one place i.e. Hyderabad. Further, the respondents have transferred the petitioner from Nilofar Hospital, Hyderabad, to MGM Hospital, Warangal, by including her name in the longstanding list duly giving exemption to the Office Bearers, whose names were included in the 40% Compulsory Transfer List at Sl.Nos.7, 10 and 11, in terms of Para 6 (C) of G.O.Ms.No.80, dated 03.07.2024, which reads as under: “The standing instructions on the transfers of office bearers of employees unions recognized, by the Government, as issued in Circular Memo No.20914/S.W.I/A2/2012-1 of G.A. (Services Welfare.I) Department, dt.26-06- 2012 read with Circular Memo.No.20914/S.W.I/A2/2012-2 OF G.A. (Services Welfare.I) Department, dated 30.06.2012, shall be followed scrupulously.” Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged para 6 (C) of G.O.Ms.No.80, dated 03.07.2024, which provides for exemption to the office bearers of employees Union, relying on which, the authorities have considered and retained the persons shown at Sl.Nos.7, 10 and 11 in the 40% Compulsory Transfer List, which ultimately resulted in transfer of the petitioner. 9. 9. Further, though the petitioner has specifically contended that she stands at Sl.No.19 and does not come within the purview of 40% Compulsory Transfer List, but in compliance of Para 4 (C) of G.O.Ms.No.80, dated 03.07.2024, the authorities have transferred the petitioner in view of the fact that she has completed 6 years and two months of service at Hyderabad and therefore falls under Para 4(B) of G.O.Ms.No.80, dated 03.07.2024, which stipulates that no person shall be retained beyond four years of service in a particular station as on 30.06.2024. 10. Further, as can be seen from the material annexed to the vacate stay petition filed by the learned Additional Advocate General, during the transfer counseling, 21 candidates, including the petitioner herein, have participated wherein the petitioner has exercised the only option for place of posting at ‘MGM, Warangal’, and the authorities have also considered same and transferred her to the place of her choice i.e. MGM Hospital, Warangal. 11. In this context, it is relevant to state that in Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “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 sometime 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. 7. 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. 7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right.” 12. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its subsequent judgment in State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal, (2001) 5 SCC 508 holding as under: “4. An order of transfer of an employee is a part of the service conditions and such order of transfer is not required to be interfered with lightly by a court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction unless the court finds that earlier the order is mala fide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer or that the authorities, who issued the order, had not the competence to pass the order....” 13. From the above settled proposition, it is clear that an order should not be interfered with, unless the same is vitiated by mala fides. In the case on hand, the petitioner is unable to establish any mala fide on the part of the official respondents either in transferring the petitioner or in retaining the unofficial respondent. Therefore, the impugned transfer order does not warrant any interference of this Court. 14. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs.