Madras High Court
Kanniyappan vs The Director Of Horticulture And ... on 20 November, 2025
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.A No. 3266 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.11.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.A No.3266 of 2025
and
C.M.P.No.26801 of 2025
Kanniyappan
Assistant Horticulture Officer
Hosur
O/o. The Assistant Director of Horticulture Office
Hosur Block
Krishnagiri District. ..Appellant
Vs
1. The Director of Horticulture and Plantation Crops
O/o. The Director of Horticulture and Plantation Crops
Department
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
2. The Joint Director of Horticulture
O/o. The Joint Director of Horticulture
Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.
3. Mr.Rubesh Yadav
Assistant Horticulture Officer
State Horticulture Farm
Anaikatti Block
Page Nos.1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 12:08:57 pm )
W.A No. 3266 of 2025
Coimbatore District. ..Respondents
Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent to set aside the
order 22.08.2025 made in W.P.No.25019 of 2025 on the file of this Court and
allow the writ appeal.
For Appellant : Mr. H. Mohammed Imran
of M/s.Ajmal Associates (Law Firm)
For Respondents : Mr. E. Veda Bagath Singh
Special Government Pleader
for R1 & R2
JUDGMENT
(Made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.)
The challenge in this intra-Court appeal is to the order dated 22.08.2025
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 25019 of 2025. By the said
order, the learned Single Judge rejected the prayer of the appellant/writ
petitioner to set aside the order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the first respondent,
transferring the appellant from the post of Assistant Horticulture Officer, Hosur
Block, Krishnagiri District, to the State Horticulture Farm, Anaikatti Block,
Coimbatore District.
2. Aggrieved by the order of transfer, the appellant approached this Court
in the aforesaid writ petition. The learned Single Judge, taking note of the fact
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 12:08:57 pm )
that the appellant had been working at the present station, i.e., Hosur Circle,
Krishnagiri District, from 01.08.2022 till the date of the impugned order,
dismissed the writ petition.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
Special Government Pleader for the official respondents and upon perusing the
impugned order as well as the order of transfer, we find that in the transfer
order dated 01.07.2025 it has been specifically stated that out of eight
transferees, no transfer allowance would be granted to five, since their transfers
were issued on their own request.
4. One such transferee is Mr. K. Rupesh Yadav, who was originally
working at the Horticulture Farm, Anaikatti Circle, Coimbatore District. He
was transferred and posted to the station where the appellant was working, and
the appellant was transferred to Anaikatti Circle. It is therefore evident that the
appellant’s transfer was effected only to accommodate the said K. Rupesh
Yadav.
5. In view of the above, it cannot be stated that the transfer was a regular
or routine administrative transfer based on any exigency or administrative
necessity. Though the transfer order was challenged unsuccessfully, the factual
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 12:08:57 pm )
position remains that, pursuant to the order dated 01.07.2025, a relieving order
has also been issued and, admittedly, the appellant has been relieved. At this
stage, therefore, we do not find it appropriate to interfere with either the
transfer order or the consequential relieving order.
6. However, since the original transfer order dated 01.07.2025, insofar as
it relates to the appellant, was not made on any administrative exigency, if the
appellant makes a fresh representation in future, the respondents/employer shall
consider the same objectively and explore the possibility of accommodating
him either in Krishnagiri District or any nearby District, depending upon
vacancy availability.
7. With the above observations, this Writ Appeal stands disposed of.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
(R.S.K.,J) (H.C., J)
20.11.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
mk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 12:08:57 pm )
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,
mk
20.11.2025
(1/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 12:08:57 pm )
