Madras High Court
T.Ravikumar vs Commissioner on 26 May, 2022
W.A(MD)No.472 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.05.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A (MD).No.472 of 2022
and
CMP(MD) Nos.4460 to 4462 of 2022
T.Ravikumar Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.Commissioner,
Adi Dravidar Welfare Department,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
2.District Adi-Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Officer,
District Adi-Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli. Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order
passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.22938 of 2021, dated 25.04.2022.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Gurunathan
For Respondents : Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran
Additional Government Pleader
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.472 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R. SURESH KUMAR, J.)
This intra-court Appeal has been directed against the order passed by
the learned Judge in W.P(MD) No.22938 of 2021, dated 25.04.2022.
2.The writ petitioner is the appellant herein, who filed the writ
petition with the prayer of writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent
therein, to consider the petitioner's case for transferring to Tenkasi District in
view of the option submitted by him after bifurcation of District, based on the
proposal sent by the second respondent in his proceedings dated 08.01.2020.
3.When the said writ petition was considered and decided, the learned
Judge by the impugned order has taken a view that only a proposal has been
sent by the second respondent to the first respondent, therefore, based on the
proposal, no right has been accrued on the petitioner to seek transfer or
appointment in the desired place, therefore, at this stage, since the plea raised
by the petitioner being prematured one, on that grount rejected the writ petition
by the impugned order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.472 of 2022
4.Mr.K.Gurunathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
would contend that when bifurcation has been made between two revenue
Districts under which a new Revenue District is created, option had to be given
by various employees working in various Departments in the State Government
in the District from where, bifurcation has been made. Only in this context,
option has been given, based on which, the proposal has been sent by the
second respondent to the first respondent, who is heading all the Districts
concerned and the said proposal since has been pending, during the pendency
of the proposal, since transfer and appointment has been made to some of the
persons, who claimed to be the juniors of the petitioner, the petitioner triggered
to approach this Court with the aforestated prayer.
5.Heard Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran, learned Additional Government
Pleader appearing for the respondents, who would submit that based on the
option exercised by the petitioner for getting transfer to the bifurcated District,
i.e., Tenkasi District, proposal has already been sent by the second respondent,
which would be considered by the first respondent on merits and decision may
be taken within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Court. According to
the option received from the petitioner and the similarly placed persons, it is for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.472 of 2022
the department to decide after evaluating the inter-se seniority of the petitioner
and the similarly placed persons as per the relevant service Rules.
6.We have heard the said submissions made by both sides and
perused the materials placed before this Court.
7.The prayer sought for by the appellant/pettioner before the Writ
Court was to seek for a mandamus to consider the proposal sent by the second
respondent for transferring him to the bifurcated district of the Tenkasi District,
based upon the option exercised by him, the minimum reason for seeking for
such a mandamus, according to the petitioner, was that during the pendency of
the consideration of the proposal sent by the second respondent at the office of
the first respondent, some transfer seems to have been given by which some
juniors, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, have already been
transferred, that is the reason why, the prayer was sought for and the writ
petition was moved.
8.When that being the position, the learned Judge has taken a view as
if the petitioner, as a matter of right claiming posting to a particular place and
that kind of transfer, as a matter of right cannot be claimed by the petitioner,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.472 of 2022
therefore on that ground, as it is a prematured plea and hence, the writ petition
was rejected.
9.After having considered all these aspects, we are of the considered
view that the simple prayer sought for by the petitioner before the writ Court
could have been considered and decided by giving Mandamus to the
respondents to consider the proposal given by the second respondent to the
first respondent, on merits and in accordance with law.
10.In that view of the matter this Court is inclined to pass the
following order in this writ appeal.
''1.That the impugned order, dated 25.04.2022, for the
aforestated reasons is set aside and the respondents,
especially, the first respondent is hereby directed to consider
the proposal sent by the second respondent dated 08.01.2020
and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
2.It is made clear that when such a decision is taken by the
first respondent, which including the decision with regard to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.472 of 2022
the plea made by the petitioner for getting transfer to the
bifurcated District, the seniority of the petitioner can also be
decided, ofcourse without affecting the inter-se seniority
between the similarly placed persons in the District as per the
Service Rules.''
11.With these observations and directions, this writ appeal is ordered
accordingly. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
[R.S.K.,J.] [R.V.,J.]
26.05.2022
(2/2)
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
VRN/PJL
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.472 of 2022
To
1.The Commissioner,
Adi Dravidar Welfare Department,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
2.The District Adi-Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Officer,
District Adi-Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.472 of 2022
R.SURESH KUMAR,J.
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
VRN/PJL
Judgment made in
W.A (MD).No.472 of 2022
26.05.2022
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
