ORDER: PULLA KARTHIK, J. Questioning the impugned Transfer Memo No.1933/Ser.T/A1/2025, dated 24.03.2025, insofar as it relates to the petitioner and the consequential Memo No.675/Estt.A1/2025, dated 24.03.2025 issued by respondent No.3, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2) Heard Sri B.S. Prasad, learned senior counsel, representing M/s. Pearl Law Associates, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Pushkar Jaiswal, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.4. 3) Learned senior counsel has submitted that while the petitioner is working as Senior Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture, in respondent No.3 viz., Professor Jayashankar Telangana Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, a Circular Memo No.3188/Ser.T/ A1/2025, dated 18.03.2025 was issued by respondent No.3 calling the eligible Senior Faculty of the University to submit their expression of interest for consideration to the positions of Associate Deans/Associate Directors for Research for better utilization of their experience and expertise for academic management/research administration in the larger interest of the University. All the Senior Faculty with 10 years and above service in the cadre of Professor having more than one year of service of superannuation as on 01.03.2025 were once again requested to submit their Expression of Interest before 21.03.2025. Pursuant to the Circular dated 18.03.2025, the petitioner has submitted her Expression of Interest dated 20.03.2025 to serve as Associate Dean, College of Agriculture, Rajendra Nagar, in view of her left over service of one year two months. 3.1) Learned senior counsel has further contended that earlier while issuing similar circular dated 17.01.2025, respondent No.3 has categorically stipulated criteria No.9, amongst other criteria, stating that the tenure of Associate Deans/Associate Directors Research shall be for a period of Two years from the date of assumption of charge or till retirement whichever is earlier. However, contrary to the criteria at Sl.No.1 of the said Circular, respondent No.3 has posted one Dr.M.Goverdhan as Associate Dean of College of Agriculture, Rajendranagar, who never worked as Teaching Faculty. Learned senior counsel has further contended that as per Circular Memo dated 17.01.2025, the options were to be submitted on or before 24.01.2025. But, without assigning any reason, in the subsequent Circular dated 18.03.2025 the criteria was changed with a malafide intention and ulterior motive to transfer the petitioner and other similarly situated persons, who have completed just one year of service and having the left over service of below two years. But, without assigning any reason, in the subsequent Circular dated 18.03.2025 the criteria was changed with a malafide intention and ulterior motive to transfer the petitioner and other similarly situated persons, who have completed just one year of service and having the left over service of below two years. Therefore, the action of the respondents is arbitrary, malafide and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Further, as per the guidelines for transfer policy of Parent Department of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the guidelines of the State Government vide G.O.Rt.No.118, Higher Education (CE) Department, dated 15.07.2024. It is further submitted that the impugned proceeding dated 24.03.2025 was served on the petitioner through WhatsApp while she was attending ZREAC meeting at KVK, Wyra, stating that the petitioner has been transferred as Associate Dean, Agriculture College, Palem, and respondent No.4 is posted in the place of the petitioner, accordingly, respondent No.4 has joined duty in the place of petitioner on 24.03.2025 and consequent upon the same, the petitioner was deemed to have been relieved on 24.03.2025 in the afternoon and the petitioner was asked to handover the complete charge of the post held by her to the next immediate senior faculty in the department and also directed to submit compliance report, which action of the respondents prove that the entire exercise of transfer of the petitioner is malafide, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice offending the valuable rights of the petitioner. 3.2) It is further contended that by virtue of being the senior most faculty in University and also senior most faculty in the department of Agriculture, the petitioner will have a role in selection process of faculty career advancement scheme promotions. By transferring the senior faculty such as petitioner, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have a malafide intention to step aside seniors so that their irregular acts will not be questioned in future. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has submitted a letter dated 25.03.2025 to respondent No.3 requesting to retain her at Hyderabad as per her Expression of Interest in the light of her left over service of one year and two months and she being a chronic diabetic and suffering from chronic lumbar pain. However, no action is taken thereon. However, no action is taken thereon. Therefore, the action of the respondents is highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and also violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 4) Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the respondent-University is governed under Agriculture & Co-operation Department, State of Telangana, and the guidelines issued by UGC & ICAR (Indian Council of Agriculture Research) from time to time and the University is governed by its own Transfer Policy and not governed under G.O.Rt.No.118, dated 15.07.2024, which is applicable only to technical/intermediate education. Further, the Board of Management of the respondent University on 30.10.2024 has unanimously approved the modifications for nomination and method of appointment of Associate Dean/Associate Director of Research in the respondent University at item No.6 in the agenda of 38th meeting of Board of Management held on 30.10.2024 and further modifications to the same were approved by the Academic Council of the respondent University in its meeting held on 16.11.2024, as per which, the tenure of Associate Deans/Associate Directors of Research is for a period of two years from the date of assumption of charge or till retirement whichever is earlier and may be extended for another term of two years based on the performance. It is further submitted that while undertaking transfers on administrative grounds, the University has called for options from all the faculties as per the procedure prescribed in memo dated 17.11.2025. Thereafter, on noticing that sufficient faculties have not opted, the Circular Memo dated 18.03.2025 was issued giving further criteria that if adequate number of senior faculties have not opted, the senior most faculty case will be considered. It is further contended that no objections/suggestions were received from any faculty in respect of the memo dated 18.03.2025. Further, there are several colleges which require proper supervision and administration to run the college and while considering to the said positions and for better utilization of experience of the senior faculty, several faculties were transferred and promoted vide impugned memo dated 24.03.2025 wherein total 14 faculties were transferred, including the petitioner herein. Further, there are several colleges which require proper supervision and administration to run the college and while considering to the said positions and for better utilization of experience of the senior faculty, several faculties were transferred and promoted vide impugned memo dated 24.03.2025 wherein total 14 faculties were transferred, including the petitioner herein. It is further contended that the petitioner was already posted as Associate Dean for a period of two years or till attaining the age of superannuation whichever is earlier and in her place the unofficial respondent was posted, who already reported to duty and working as such. As such, the petitioner was elevated and posted in the new place i.e. Palem to make use of her vast experience in teaching for academic management in the larger interest of the University. Therefore, challenge to the memo dated 24.03.2025 after her appointment has no relevance at this stage and there is no malafide intention of the respondent University in transferring the petitioner as Associate Dean, Agriculture College, Palem. It is further contended that the transfer of faculty with less than one or two years of superannuation is a matter of policy decision and respondent University is empowered to transfer without reference to date of superannuation. For instance, one Dr.A.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, former Vice-Chancellor of Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, after his tenure was transferred as Professor, Agricultural College, Naira, on 11.06.2024 just 3 months before his superannuation. It is further submitted that the respondent University while making certain postings and transfers vide memo dated 24.03.2025 has served the orders to the concerned Head through e mail and in turn the orders were served to the petitioner through whatsapp to reach the candidate at the earliest since the petitioner was in meeting at KVK, Wyra. Further, in view of joining of respondent No.4, who was transferred in the place of the petitioner, petitioner is deemed to have been relieved from duty on 24.03.2025 AN. Therefore, it is contended that there are no merits in the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same. Further, in view of joining of respondent No.4, who was transferred in the place of the petitioner, petitioner is deemed to have been relieved from duty on 24.03.2025 AN. Therefore, it is contended that there are no merits in the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same. Reliance has been placed on: 1) State of Haryana v. Kashmir Singh , (2010) 13 SCC 306 2) Tushar D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat , (2009) 11 SCC 678 ; and 3) State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal , (2004) 11 SCC 402 5) Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has also contended on similar lines and further submitted that as the transfers were made on administrative grounds with immediate effect, respondent No.4 has reported at the new station immediately on the same day and respondent No.4 is not required to take any charge from the petitioner as she was only involved in academics and she is neither involved in financial management nor administration. It is further submitted that presently respondent No.4 is teaching 16 hours per week whereas petitioner is teaching only 6 hours per week. Further, vide impugned Memo dated 24.03.2025 respondent No.4 was transferred in the place of petitioner herein and she was also directed to look after the duties of Scientist (Agricultural Economics) at AICRP until further orders and accordingly respondent No.4 has discharged the additional duties till July, 2025. Therefore, it is not possible for respondent-University to continue the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 at the College of Agriculture, Rajendra Nagar, since there are no other vacancies available in the college. Further, G.O.Rt.No.118, dated 15.07.2024, is applicable only to technical/ intermediate education and not in case of the University, which comes under Agriculture Co-operation Department. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsel and perused the material on record. 7) A perusal of the material on record reveals that the impugned transfer order dated 24.03.2025 has been issued by respondent No.3 transferring 14 faculty members, including the petitioner herein, on administrative grounds and on the same day the Associate Dean of the respondent University has issued Memo No.675/Estt./A1/2025, dated 24.03.2025, stating that the petitioner is deemed to have relieved from duties and the said memo reads as under: “…. As per the University orders vide reference 1 st cited, Dr. Md. As per the University orders vide reference 1 st cited, Dr. Md. Ali Baba, Scientist (Agril. Economics), AICRP on Integrated Farming System (IFS), C-NARE, Rajendranagar was transferred and posted as Assistant Professor at Department of Agril. Economics, C.A., R’nagar vice Dr. K.Suhasini, Senior Professor & Univ. Head, transferred and posted as Associate Dean, Agricultural College, Palem. Accordingly, Dr.Md.Ali Baba has reported for duty as Assistant Professor, Dept. of Agril. Economics at College of Agriculture, R’nagar on 24.3.2025 A.N., vide reference 2 nd cited. Consequently on joining of Dr.Md. Ali Baba as Assistant Professor, Department of Agril. Economics, C.A., R’nagar, on 24.3.2025 A.N., Dr.K. Suhasini, Senior Professor & Univ. Head, Dept. of Agril. Economics, C.A., R’nagar is deemed to have been relieved on 24.3.2025 A.N. She is informed to hand over the complete charge of the post held by her to the net immediate senior faculty in the Department. The above faculty are informed to submit the compliance report i.e., CTC etc. to the undersigned accordingly for further necessary action.” 8) In the case on hand, admittedly, the transfers were made on administrative grounds. Further, transfer is an incidence of service. It is settled law that the scope of interference by the High Court in case of transfers is very limited and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, time and again, has deprecated the practice of interference in transfer matters. 9) In Kashmir Singh’s case (referred supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: 12. Transfer ordinarily is an incidence of service, and the courts should be very reluctant to interfere in transfer orders as long as they are not clearly illegal . In particular, we are of the opinion that transfer and postings of policemen must be left in the discretion of the State authorities concerned which are in the best position to assess the necessities of the administrative requirements of the situation. The administrative authorities concerned may be of the opinion that more policemen are required in any particular district and/or another range than in another, depending upon their assessment of the law and order situation and/or other considerations. These are purely administrative matters, and it is well settled that courts must not ordinarily interfere in administrative matters and should maintain judicial restraint, vide Tata Cellular v. Union of India [ (1994) 6 SCC 651 : AIR 1996 SC 11 ] . 14. These are purely administrative matters, and it is well settled that courts must not ordinarily interfere in administrative matters and should maintain judicial restraint, vide Tata Cellular v. Union of India [ (1994) 6 SCC 651 : AIR 1996 SC 11 ] . 14. In our opinion, the High Court has taken a totally impractical view of the matter. If the view of the High Court is to prevail, great difficulties will be created for the State administration since it will not be able to transfer/deploy its police force from one place where there may be relative peace to another district or region/range in the State where there may be disturbed law and order situation and hence requirement of more police. Courts should not, in our opinion, interfere with purely administrative matters except where absolutely necessary on account of violation of any fundamental or other legal right of the citizen. After all, the State administration cannot function with its hands tied by judiciary behind its back. As Holmes, J. of the US Supreme Court pointed out, there must be some free play of the joints provided to the executive authorities. 15. This Court also held in Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass [ (2008) 1 SCC 683 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 289] and Common Cause v. Union of India [ (2008) 5 SCC 511 ] that Judges must observe judicial restraint and must not ordinarily encroach into the domain of the legislature or the executive.” (emphasis added) 10) Similarly, in Gobardhan Lal’s case (referred supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “7. It is too late in the day for any government servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision. 8. A challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the courts or tribunals as though they are Appellate Authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. This is for the reason that courts or tribunals cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent authorities of the State and even allegations of mala fides when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the court or are based on concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made with an order of transfer. 9. 9. The very questions involved, as found noticed by the High Court in these cases, being disputed questions of facts, there was hardly any scope for the High Court to generalise the situations based on its own appreciation and understanding of the prevailing circumstances as disclosed from some write- ups in journals or newspaper reports. Conditions of service or rights, which are personal to the parties concerned, are to be governed by rules as also the inbuilt powers of supervision and control in the hierarchy of the administration of State or any authority as well as the basic concepts and well-recognised powers and jurisdiction inherent in the various authorities in the hierarchy. All that cannot be obliterated by sweeping observations and directions unmindful of the anarchy which it may create in ensuring an effective supervision and control and running of administration merely on certain assumed notions of orderliness expected from the authorities affecting transfers. Even as the position stands, avenues are open for being availed of by anyone aggrieved, with the authorities concerned, the courts and tribunals, as the case may be, to seek relief even in relation to an order of transfer or appointment or promotion or any order passed in disciplinary proceedings on certain well-settled and recognized grounds or reasons, when properly approached and sought to be vindicated in the manner known to and in accordance with law. No such generalised directions as have been given by the High Court could ever be given leaving room for an inevitable impression that the courts are attempting to take over the reigns of executive administration. Attempting to undertake an exercise of the nature could even be assailed as an onslaught and encroachment on the respective fields or areas of jurisdiction earmarked for the various other limbs of the State. Giving room for such an impression should be avoided with utmost care and seriously and zealously courts endeavour to safeguard the rights of parties.” 11) Similarly, in Tushar D. Bhatt’s case (referred supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “16. The legal position has been crystallised in a number of judgments that transfer is an incidence of service and transfers are made according to administrative exigencies. 17. In the instant case, in the entire tenure of more than 18 years, the appellant was only transferred twice. The appellant's transfer order cannot be termed as mala fide. The legal position has been crystallised in a number of judgments that transfer is an incidence of service and transfers are made according to administrative exigencies. 17. In the instant case, in the entire tenure of more than 18 years, the appellant was only transferred twice. The appellant's transfer order cannot be termed as mala fide. The appellant was not justified in defying the transfer order and to level allegations against his superiors and remaining unauthorisedly absent from official duties from 11-10-1999 to 27-4-2000 i.e. more than six months. In the interest of discipline of any institution or organisation such an approach and attitude of the employees cannot be countenanced.” 12) Similarly, in Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani , (1989) 2 SCC 602 the Hon’ble Supreme Court had dealt with similar case and observed as under: “4. … Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Whenever, a public servant is transferred he must comply with the order but if there be any genuine difficulty in proceeding on transfer it is open to him to make representation to the competent authority for stay, modification or cancellation of the transfer order. If the order of transfer is not stayed, modified or cancelled the public servant concerned must carry out the order of transfer. In the absence of any stay of the transfer order a public servant has no justification to avoid or evade the transfer order merely on the ground of having made a representation, or on the ground of his difficulty in moving from one place to the other. If he fails to proceed on transfer in compliance with the transfer order, he would expose himself to disciplinary action under the relevant rules, as has happened in the instant case. The respondent lost his service as he refused to comply with the order of his transfer from one place to the other. 13) In view of the above legal position, the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned transfer order dated 24.03.2025 on administrative grounds cannot be faulted with. The respondent lost his service as he refused to comply with the order of his transfer from one place to the other. 13) In view of the above legal position, the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned transfer order dated 24.03.2025 on administrative grounds cannot be faulted with. 14) Insofar as the submission of the learned senior counsel made placing reliance on the interim order passed by this Court 01.04.2025, that as the petitioner has not handed over the charge held by her as on 01.04.2025, she is entitled to be continued at Rajendranagar is concerned, it is the specific assertion of the respondent University that consequent upon joining of respondent No.4 on 24.03.2025 AN, the petitioner is deemed to have been relieved on 24.03.2025 FN. In that view of the matter, the interim order of status quo granted by this Court on 01.04.2024 cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner for continuing her at Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, irrespective of the fact whether charge is handed over or not. 15) For the afore-mentioned reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.