Madras High Court
D.Sathiyaseelan vs The Joint Director (Personnel) on 20 April, 2022
W.P.No.5880 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.5880 of 2020
and
W.M.P.Nos. 6892, 6894, 8329 and 13896 of 2020
D.Sathiyaseelan ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The Joint Director (Personnel)
Directorate of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
2. The District Educational Officer,
District Educational Office,
Chidambaram,
Cuddalore District.
3. The District Educational Officer,
District Educational Office,
Nagapattinam,
Nagapattinam District.
4. A.Kandasamy ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining
to the order made in Na.Ka.No.0707/A3/E1/2020 dated 26.02.2020 issued by
the 1st respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Pugazhenthi
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5880 of 2020
For Respondents : Mr.V.Manoharan
Additional Government Pleader
(for R1 to R3)
: Mr.G.Sankaran (for R4)
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari,
calling for the records pertaining to the order made in
Na.Ka.No.0707/A3/E1/2020 dated 26.02.2020 issued by the 1st respondent
and quash the same.
2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed as Junior
Assistant in the year 1984 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of
Assistant in the year 2002 and posted at Assistant Elementary Educational
Office, Melmalaiyanur, Villupuram District. Thereafter, he was promoted as
Superintendent by the 1st respondent by an order dated 05.02.2005 and posted
at Assistant Elementary Educational Office, Cuddalore. Thereafter, he was
transferred to District Educational Office, Cuddalore on 15.04.2015.
Thereafter, he was promoted as Personal Assistant to District Educational
Officer, Thoothukudi by an order dated 28.02.2018 and thereafter, he was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5880 of 2020
transferred to District Educational Office, Chidambaram by an order dated
10.08.2018.
3. According to the petitioner, there were some irregularities in the
administration of the 2nd respondent office and thus, he made representations
dated 04.12.2019, 09.12.2019, 11.12.2018 and 31.01.2020 to the District
Educational Officer, Chidambaram to enquire into the allegations and
irregularities committed by the office.
4. While that being so, the petitioner made a representation dated
05.12.2019 for transferring him from the 2nd respondent/office to District
Educational Office, Cuddalore District, since the petitioner's wife viz.,
M.Vetriselvi has been working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in St.Saveriyor
Middle School, Cuddalore District. The 4th respondent, who worked as
Superintendent in the 2nd respondent/office, was promoted as Personal
Assistant and transferred to the 3rd respondent/office by an order dated
17.02.2020 by the 1st respondent.
5. It is further stated that the petitioner was transferred from the 2nd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5880 of 2020
respondent/office to 3rd respondent office by the 1st respondent by an order
dated 26.02.2020. In order to take revenge against the petitioner, the
petitioner has been transferred to the 3rd respondent/office, wherein the 4th
respondent has now been promoted and working as a Personal Assistant in
the 3rd respondent/office. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the said
impugned order before this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition.
6. The 1st to 3rd respondents have filed counter affidavit, wherein it has
been stated that the 4th respondent made a request to the official respondents
for transferring him to the 3rd respondent/office on the ground that he was
suffering from cancer. Considering the said request, the impugned transfer
order has been passed by the 1st respondent by transferring the 4th respondent
to the 3rd respondent/office. Therefore, there is no mala fide intention as
alleged by the petitioner and it is baseless. Thus, the same is liable to be
rejected.
7. The petitioner being a Government Servant has to abide the service
conditions and the said impugned transfer order is a service condition for the
employer to transfer the petitioner on administrative grounds. Such order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5880 of 2020
cannot be challenged, unless it has been made in mala fide intention or any
other consequence.
8. In such circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the 4 th
respondent has also denied the aforesaid allegations of the petitioner and he
has filed counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated that the 4th respondent
has been suffering from cancer and hence, he was relieved and joined in the
3rd respondent/office for taking treatment in Chidambaram and Chennai. Only
for the aforesaid reason, the said impugned transfer order has been passed by
the 1st respondent.
9. In view of the aforesaid fact, the impugned transfer order has been
passed by the 1st respondent only on the administrative grounds and the 1st to
3rd respondents also stated in the counter affidavit that due to illness of the 4 th
respondent, his request was considered and he was promoted and transferred
from Chidambaram to Nagapattinam District. Therefore, the said allegation
of the petitioner made against the 4th respondent is misconceived, baseless
and does not warrant interference.
10. It is pertinent to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5880 of 2020
Court in the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose Vs.State of Bihar reported in AIR
1991 SC 532 which held that, the Courts should not interfere with the
transfer orders made on administrative reasons unless there is violation of
any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide intention. 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 instead affected party should approach the higher
authorities in the Department....”
11. Further in W.P.(MD)Nos.24247 and 24250 of 2019 (LM.Salim &
another Vs. Principal Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5880 of 2020
Force, Southern Railway Chennai & 3 others), reported in (2021 SCC
Online MAD 13363), wherein 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
service. Public servant is liable to work wherever he is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5880 of 2020
posted in the interest of public administration. On 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5880 of 2020
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.”
12. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by the parties and in
the light of the decisions cited supra, there is no merit in the instant writ
petition and it is liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
20.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
dm
Note: Issue order copy on 29.04.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5880 of 2020
D.KRISHNAKUMAR. J
dm
To
1. The Joint Director (Personnel)
Directorate of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
2. The District Educational Officer,
District Educational Office,
Chidambaram,
Cuddalore District.
3. The District Educational Officer,
District Educational Office,
Nagapattinam,
Nagapattinam District.
W.P.No.5880 of 2020
20.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
