Madras High Court
G.Seenivasan vs The Chief Executive Officer on 2 July, 2025
W.P.(MD).No.17839 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 02.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
W.P.(MD)No.17839 of 2025
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.13657 & 13658 of 2025
G.Seenivasan ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Chief Executive Officer,
Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board,
Chennai House,
Chennai 600 104.
2. The Regional Deputy Director (I/C),
Khadi and Village Industries,
Madurai,
Madurai District.
3. The Assistant Director,
Khadi and Village Industries,
Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records
pertaining to the impugned order of punitive transfer in Na.Ka.No.
1685/E2(2)/2025, dated 21.06.2025 on the file of the Respondent No.1 and
quash the same as illegal, since the transfer from Tirunelveli to Thirupur all of
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 04:24:44 pm )
W.P.(MD).No.17839 of 2025
a sudden without any counselling process, is highly arbitrary and illegal, and
quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Louis
For Respondents : Mr.C.Rajakumar
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned transfer
order issued by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.1685/E2(2)/2025, dated
21.06.2025.
2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials
placed before this Court.
3. The petitioner is presently working as 'Khadi Assistant Grade-II' at
the third respondent office. All of a sudden, the impugned order of transfer
has been passed transferring the petitioner from Tirunelveli to Thirupur. It is
the case of the petitioner that without even any counselling, he was
transferred to Thirupur vide the impugned order dated 21.06.2025.
Challenging the said transfer order, the petitioner is before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 04:24:44 pm )
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that no
public or Government servant has any legal right to be posted at any
particular place, since transfer of a Government servant from one place to
another is not only a condition of service, but incident of service and hence,
he urged this Court to dismiss the writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials
placed before this Court.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Registrar General, High
Court of Judicature of Madras vs. R. Perachi reported in (2011) 12 SCC
137, has held that the provision of reasons in the transfer order, including
reference to the alleged misconduct or complaints against the employee
concerned, would not per se lead to the conclusion that the transfer is
punitive and the relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:-
“(c) The administrative exigencies that, in the opinion of
the employer, necessitate transfer cannot be exhaustively
enumerated and the court would not ordinarily substitute its
view for that of the employer in such matters;
(d) A transfer would be construed as punitive or in lieu
of punishment if, in the opinion of the court, there is sufficient
evidence that such transfer is intended to be the punishment for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 04:24:44 pm )
the alleged misconduct. The provision of reasons in the transfer
order, including reference to the alleged misconduct or
complaints against the employee concerned, would not per se
lead to the conclusion that the transfer is punitive;”
7. Further, transfer is a contingency of service and the employer has
full discretion to transfer the employees on administrative exigencies. The
impugned transfer order was made on administrative grounds and therefore,
the same cannot be questioned by the employee. It is also well settled that
transfer is an incident of service and transfer on account of administrative
exigencies cannot be interfered with by Courts in exercise of judicial review
unless the order of transfer is found to be mala fide.
8. In view of the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
02.07.2025
NCC : Yes/No (5/5)
Index : Yes / No
sm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 04:24:44 pm )
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
sm
Order made in
(5/5)
Dated:
02.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 04:24:44 pm )
