Madras High Court
S.Saraswathi vs The Joint Director Of Elementary ... on 17 June, 2025
W.P.(MD).No.6015 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
W.P.(MD)No.6015 of 2025
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.4421 & 6294 of 2025
S.Saraswathi ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Joint Director of Elementary Education (Administration),
College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
2. The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Allinagaram, Theni District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the
Impugned Order passed by the 1st respondent dated 24.02.2025 bearing
Na.Ka.No.000639/G1/2025 and consequential order passed by the 2nd
Respondent dated 27.02.2025 bearing Na.Ka.No.854/A1/2023 and quash the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Saravanan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Siddharthan
Additional Government Pleader
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 01:32:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).No.6015 of 2025
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned transfer
order issued by the 1st respondent dated 24.02.2025 bearing Na.Ka.No.
000639/G1/2025 and consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
27.02.2025 bearing Na.Ka.No.854/A1/2023.
2. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final
disposal at the stage of admission itself.
3. The petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on
18.07.1988 in Theni District and she was promoted as Primary and Middle
School Headmasters on 18.06.2001 and 08.03.2005 respectively. Thereafter,
she was promoted as Additional Assistant Elementary Officer on 18.08.2010
and Assistant Elementary Educational Officer on 29.12.2021 and as Block
Educational Officer on 29.12.2021. Now, the petitioner is presently working
as Block Development Officer at Theni District. While this being so, the
impugned orders have been passed by the respondents transferring the
petitioner to Kanyakumari District. Challenging the said transfer orders, the
petitioner is before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 01:32:00 pm )
4. The contention of the petitioner is that the transfer order even
though as an administrative measure, is really punitive in nature, since the
impugned orders have been passed on the basis of a complaint lodged against
the petitioner. However, the petitioner is noway connected with the said
allegations.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a widow, who is living with her unmarried daughter and hence,
she finds difficulty to travel such a long distance. Hence, he seeks for quash
of the impugned orders.
6. The learned Additional Government Pleader 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.
7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials
placed before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 01:32:00 pm )
8. 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
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;”
9. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 01:32:00 pm )
exigencies cannot be interfered with by Courts in exercise of judicial review
unless the order of transfer is found to be mala fide.
10. In view of the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
17.06.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
sm
TO:-
1. The Joint Director of Elementary Education (Administration),
College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
2. The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Allinagaram, Theni District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 01:32:00 pm )
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
sm
Order made in
Dated:
17.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 01:32:00 pm )
