Madras High Court

The Principal Chief Conservator ... vs R. Ravichandran on 1 March, 2023

WA No.270 / 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.03.2023

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

Writ Appeal No.270 of 2023
and
C.M.P. No. 2788 of 2023

1. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest
(Head of Department)
Panagal Buildings, Saidapet
Chennai – 600 015.

2. The Conservator of Forests
Salem Circle, Salem

3. The District Forest Officer
Namakkal Division
Namakkal .. Appellants

Versus

R. Ravichandran .. Respondent

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act praying to set
aside the order dated 04.10.2021 made in W.P. No. 19436 of 2021 and allow
this Writ Appeal.

For Appellants : Mr. S. Yashwanth
Additional Government Pleader

For Respondent : Mr. M.R. Jothimanian.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

1/7
WA No.270 / 2023

JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J]

This Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellants, praying to set aside

the order dated 04.10.2021 passed by the learned Judge, allowing the Writ

Petition No.19436 of 2021 filed by the respondent herein.

2. The respondents in the Writ Petition No. 19436 of 2021 are the

appellants herein. The Writ Petition has been filed by the respondent herein to

issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the

order of transfer issued by the 1st appellant/first respondent in Ref.No.B2/

1659/2020 dated 06.09.2021, quash the same and to direct the appellants/

respondents to allow him to complete his normal tenure in the present post or

station or to re-transfer him to original place at Rasipuram Forest Range.

3. The respondent herein was appointed as Forest Guard on

17.03.1997. On 07.09.2009 he was promoted as Forester and further promoted

to the post of Forest Range Officer on 13.08.2016. According to the

respondent, he was transferred and posted as Forest Range Officer in

Rasipuram Forest Range, by a proceedings dated 15.02.2021 and even before

completing three years of service, he was ordered to be transferred to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WA No.270 / 2023

Villupuram by passing the order, which is impugned in the writ petition. It is

his contention that as per the Transfer Policy of the Government made in G.O.

Ms. No.10, P&AR Department dated 07.01.1994 as amended by G.O. Ms.

No.687, Environment and Forest Department dated 01.10.1990, before

completing three years in the present Station, he should not be transferred. It

is also stated that the first respondent is not competent to pass an order of

transfer and if at all, it is for the Government to pass such an order of transfer

as per the aforesaid Orders. While so, by merely citing administrative reason,

the order of transfer has been passed and therefore, he prayed for quashing the

same.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the appellants in

the Writ Petition by contending that as per G.O. (D) No.119, Environment and

Forest Department dated 04.09.2020, the first appellant is empowered to pass

an order of transfer on administrative grounds and accordingly, the order of

transfer came to be passed and hence, it cannot be called in question by the

respondent herein.

5. The learned Judge, on considering the rival submissions,

concluded that the impugned order of transfer has been passed by the first https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WA No.270 / 2023

appellant contrary to G.O. Ms. No.10, P&AR Department dated 07.01.1994. It

was further held that as per the general policy of transfer, the respondent is

liable to be transferred only after completing three years in the present station.

It was also held by the learned Judge that even though it is stated in the

impugned order of transfer that it is passed on administrative grounds, there is

no such exigency to transfer the respondent. Above all, it was concluded that

the respondent herein has been transferred only to accommodate the other

Forest Range Officers viz., Thiru. S. Dhanapal and Thiru. S. Vimalkumar and

hence the transfer of respondent is not warranted. Aggrieved by the order of

the learned Judge, the appellants have come up with this intra-court appeal.

6. When this appeal is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for

the respondent submitted that the transfer order, which was challenged in the

Writ Petition, has been cancelled by proceedings in Ref.No.B2/34565/2021

dated 21.12.2021 and a copy of the same, has also been produced before this

Court and therefore, nothing survives for further adjudication herein.

7. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the

appellants conceded the said submissions. However, he submitted that the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WA No.270 / 2023

observation of the learned Judge in Paragraph No.15 of the order is required to

be interfered with and the same reads as follows:-

15. The transfer of the petitioner has been made only to accommodate for the other Forest Range Officers Thiru S.Dhanapal and Thiru S.Vimalkumar. The petitioner's transfer is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.10 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel-S) Department, dated 07.01.1994 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.687 Environment & Forest (FR II) Department dated 01.10.1990. Even as per Section 48(3) of the said Act, the transfer on administrative grounds can be made only by the Government.

8. By citing the above, the learned Additional Government Pleader

submitted that in view of such observation made by the learned Judge, it will

be difficult for the appellants to effect periodical and routine transfer of their

employees by citing administrative grounds. He also brought to the notice of

this Court that the respondent has not challenged the validity of G.O. (D).

No.119, Environment and Forests (FR.2-(i) Department dated 04.09.2020 and

the writ petition has been filed questioning the order of transfer.

9. We have heard the learned Additional Government Pleader

appearing for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondent

and also perused the materials placed on record.

10. Admittedly, inspite of the filing of this appeal, the appellants have

cancelled the order of transfer passed against the respondent, by proceedings https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WA No.270 / 2023

dated 21.12.201. Hence, there is no requirement to pursue the appeal.

However, as regards the observation of the learned Judge in para No.15 of the

order, impugned herein, we are of the view that the same is for the purpose of

adjudication of the writ petition filed by the respondent and it will not be a bar

for the appellants to effect routine or periodical transfer of their employees, by

following the appropriate Government Order in force.

11. With the above clarification, this Writ Appeal stands disposed of.

No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

                                                                        (R.M.D.,J)     (M.S.Q.,J)
                                                                               01.03.2023
                  ay/rsh
                  Index:Yes / No
                  Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
                  Neutral Citation: Yes / No
                  To

1. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, (Head of Department), Panagal Buildings, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

2. The Conservator of Forests, Salem Circle, Salem

3. The District Forest Officer, Namakkal Division, Namakkal.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WA No.270 / 2023

R. MAHADEVAN, J and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J

ay/rsh

WA No. 270 of 2023

01.03.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis