Madras High Court
P. Radhakrishnan vs The District Officer on 19 April, 2022
W.P. No. 12160 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P. No. 12160 of 2020
and
W.M.P.No. 14894 of 2020
P. Radhakrishnan
...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Officer,
Salem District
Salem - 636 001
2. The Executive Officer,
Kolathur Special Grade Town Panchayat
Kolathur - 636 303
Salem District
3. The Executive Officer,
PN Patty Town Panchayat
PN Patty,
Salem District
... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for
the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating
to the impugned order made in Na.Ka.No.7939/2019/Pe.2 dated 14.02.2020
passed by the first respondent, quash the same, consequently direct the first
respondent to retransfer the petitioner from the third respondent to the second
respondent panchayat by considering his representations dated 18.11.2019 and
09.12.2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P. No. 12160 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr. N. Manoharan
For Respondents : Mrs. S. Anitha
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The writ petition is filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified
mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order made in
Na.Ka.No.7939/2019/Pe.2 dated 14.02.2020 passed by the first respondent,
quash the same, consequently direct the first respondent to retransfer the
petitioner from the third respondent to the second respondent panchayat by
considering his representations dated 18.11.2019 and 09.12.2019.
2. According to the petitioner, while he was working as Sanitary worker in
the second respondent panchayat, his name was included in the seniority list
dated 01.01.2017, which is Serial No.1 in respect of the second respondent
municipality for the next avenue of promotion. Thereafter, the first respondent
has passed the transfer order in Na.Ka.No. 7939/2019/pe2 dated 06.11.2021 by
transferring the petitioner to the third respondent panchayat. Therefore, the
petitioner made a representation on 12.11.2019 to the second respondent by
explaining the difficulties for joining in the transferred place and to re-consider
the transfer order. Since the representation dated 12.11.2019 was not
considered by the second respondent, the petitioner again submitted a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
representation dated 18.11.2019 to the first respondent with a request to revoke
W.P. No. 12160 of 2020
the order of transfer dated 06.11.2019 and the same was not considered by the
first respondent. Therefore, petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 34039 of
2019 to quash the transfer order and other reliefs. By order dated 02.12.2019,
this court directed the second to consider the representation made by the
petitioner dated 12.11.2019. Subsequently, the petitioner joined the transferred
place/third respondent on 09.12.2019 and sent a detailed representation dated
20.12.2019 to the respondents 1 and 2 as well to the higher authorities.
Pursuant to the order passed by this court in the aforesaid writ petition, the first
respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner. Challenging the impugned
order, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition by raising several grounds
by stating that the his seniority is deprived due to transferring him to other
panchayat. Now, the petitioner's name is placed at the bottom of the seniority
list in the transferred place/third respondent. Therefore, the said order is liable
to be quashed and seeks for re-transfer to the same.
3. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents, in which, it is clearly
stated that the said allegations are incorrect. The petitioner seniority has not
been affected by transferring him from second respondent panchayat to the third
respondent panchayat. According to the respondents, the seniority is district
wide base and not based on single town panchayat entity. Therefore, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
contention of the petitioner is totally incorrect and therefore, the said contention
W.P. No. 12160 of 2020
of the petitioner is liable to the rejected. As far as other contentions are
concerned, the said transfer order was passed only on administrative grounds.
Hence, it has no merits in seeking for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. At this juncture, it is pertinent to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose Vs.State of Bihar reported in
AIR 1991 SC 532, has held that the Courts should not interfere with the transfer
orders made on administrative reasons unless the there is violation of any
mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of malafide. The relevant portion of
the judgment is extracted below:
“In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a
transfer order which are made in public interest and for
administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made
in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the
ground of malafide. A Government servant holding a
transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at
one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from
one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the
competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights.
Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive
instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not
interfere with the order of executive instructions or orders,
the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
instead affected party should approach the higher
W.P. No. 12160 of 2020
authorities in the Department....”
5. Further in the case in W.P.(MD) Nos. 24247 & 24250 of 2019,
LM.Salim & another Vs. Principal Chief Security Commissioner, Railway
Protection Force, Southern Railway Chennai & 3 others, reported in 2021
SCC Online Mad 13363, I had an occasion to deal with the similar issue in
detail by relying upon various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and held
that in the absence of any such legal ground, routine administrative transfers
can never be interfered with by the Constitutional Courts. The relevant portion
is extracted hereunder;
“7. That apart, administrative transfers are the
prerogative of the Department concerned and the
competent authorities are the best persons to assess
and act accordingly. However, those competent
authorities should act in the interest of public and in
the event of any illegality or some personal motive,
then alone, the employee can approach the Court of
law for appropriate remedy. In other words, if an
order of transfer is issued with malafide intention or
in violation of the statutory rules, then alone a writ
petition can be entertained. Even in such cases, the
allegation of malafide intention must be substantiated
in the writ proceedings and the official concerned must
be impleaded as party respondents in the writ
proceedings. In the absence of any such legal ground,
routine administrative transfers can never be
interfered with by the Constitutional Courts. Transfer
is an incidental to service, more so, a condition of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
service. Public servant is liable to work wherever he is
posted in the interest of public administration. On
W.P. No. 12160 of 2020
accepting the offer of appointment, a person is
agreeing for the conditions of service and transfer
being incidental, he must be in a position to work,
wherever he is posted.
......
9. In State of U.P. and others vs. Siya Ram and others
[(2004) 7 SCC 405], the Honourable Supreme Court
has held that unless the order of transfer is shown to
be an outcome of malafide exercise or stated to be in
violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such
transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals normally cannot
interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as
though they were the appellate authorities substituting
their own decision for that of the employer /
management, as against such orders passed in the
interest of administrative exigencies of the service
concerned.
10. Further, in Airports Authority of India vs. Rajeev
Ratan Pandey and others [(2009) 8 SCC 337], the
Honourable Supreme Court has held that in the matter
of transferring Government employees, the scope of
judicial review is limited and the High Courts should
not interfere with an order of transfer lightly.
11. In the instant case, on perusal of the materials
available on records, this Court does not find any
mala fide exercise or violation of any statutory
provision on the part of the respondents and therefore,
the impugned transfer orders and the consequential
relieving orders do not warrant any interference of
this Court and the writ petitions are therefore liable to
the dismissed.”
6. Considering the said submission made by the parties concerned and in
view of the statement made in the counter affidavit that the seniority is district
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 12160 of 2020
wide base and not based on single town panchayat entity, and the decision cited
supra, the contention made by the petitioner is liable to the rejected and the
transfer order has been passed by the respondents for the administrative reasons
and transfer is an incident to the service. Therefore, this court cannot interfere
with the transfer order unless it is malifide or without jurisdiction.
7. With the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
mrn
To
1. The District Officer,
Salem District
Salem - 636 001
2. The Executive Officer,
Kolathur Special Grade Town Panchayat
Kolathur - 636 303
Salem District
3. The Executive Officer,
PN Patty Town Panchayat
PN Patty,
Salem District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 12160 of 2020
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
(mrn)
W.P. No. 12160 of 2020
and
W.M.P.No. 14894 of 2020
19.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
