R.Vasanthi v. The Registrar General,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.02.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP WRIT PETITION NO.3954 OF 2021 AND W.M.P.NOS.4523 AND 4524 OF 2021 R.Vasanthi D/o.Late A.Ramadoss ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai - 104.

2. The Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

3. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records and quash the impugned order passed by second respondent in his proceedings A1 154/2020 dated 27.11.2020 in respect of petitioner and consequently, direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to work in her capacity as Steno Typist Grade III at Judicial Magistrate I, Ramanathapuram.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Baskar For Respondents: Mr.P.Kannan Kumar For R1 to R3

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by R.SUBBIAH, J] This matter is heard through Video Conferencing.

2. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking to quash the impugned order passed by second respondent in his proceedings A1 154/2020 dated 27.11.2020 insofar the petitioner

is concerned and consequently, direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to work in her capacity as Steno Typist Grade III at Judicial Magistrate I, Ramanathapuram.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was recruited by TNPSC and appointed as Steno-Typist in the Judicial Department. Petitioner joined duty on 15.07.2015 at District Munsif Court, Paramakudi, as per the proceedings of the learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram. Petitioner's service was regularised on 23.08.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to various Court at Ramanathapuram. From the year 2018, the petitioner was repeatedly submitting representations to the concerned authorities to transfer her to her native place. While so, the second respondent has issued the impugned proceedings transferring the petitioner from Ramanathapuram to Thiruvadanai, which is 50 kms. away from Ramanathapuram. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed seeking for the aforesaid relief.

5. Heard learned counsel for respondents on the above submissions. Perused the materials on record.

6. It is well settled principle that an order of transfer can be questioned only if it is issued with malafide intention or in violation of guidelines. In the case on hand, the order of transfer was issued on administrative ground. Moreover, the only reason stated by the petitioner is that Thiruvadanai is 50 kms. away from Ramanathapuram and as a lady, she finds it difficult to travel such a long distance every day to reach the Court. Such a reasoning cannot be accepted especially when the order of transfer was issued for administrative exigencies. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the present petition.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gm

To

1. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai - 104.

2. The Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

3. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai.

4. The Judicial Magistrate - I, Ramanathapuram.

+1cc to Mr.D.Baskar, Advocate, S.R.No.11433 Writ Petition No.3954 of 2021 JPII(CO) CS/05/03/2021