R.Varadarajan, v. The Managing Director,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07-11-2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM And WMP No.23667 of 2016 1.R.Varadarajan 2.K.Arokiadass 3.S.Manimaran 4.E.Balakrishnan 5.S.Murugan 6.K.Poyyamozhi ..
Petitioners vs.
1.The Managing Director, Chennai.
2.The Senior Regional Manager, Old Collector's Office, Tiruchirappalli.
3.The District Manager/Deputy Collector, Cuddalore, 1/6
4.Assistant Manager (R.V), Kudikadu, Cuddalore-5, ..
Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records and quash the order passed by the third respondent in Se.Mu.No.RV-1/3241/CS/ 2016 dated 29.07.2016.
For Petitioners : Mr.Aditya Varadarajan for Mr.R.Gururaj.
For Respondents : Mr.C.Ramesh, Standing Counsel for TASMAC.
O R D E R
The order of an administrative transfer issued by the third respondent in proceedings dated 29.07.2016 transferring the writ petitioner from one TASMAC shop to another TASMAC shop within the same District, is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2/6
2. The writ petitioners are working as Supervisors in the TASMAC shops.
3. On account of the policy decision of the State Government to close down certain TASMAC shops in Cuddalore District, the petitioners were transferred to other TASMAC shops on administrative grounds. The petitioners have challenged the said transfer order and pursuant to the interim order of status-quo granted, they are continuing for more than 5 years in the very same TASMAC shop as of now.
4. The petitioners are working as temporary employees in the cadre of Supervisors.
5. Transfer is an incidental to service, more-so, a condition of service. The petitioners are liable to be transferred on administrative grounds and for efficient administration. The power of transfer conferred on the Competent Authorities cannot be interfered with by the High Court in a routine manner. Only if an order of transfer is issued by an Incompetent 3/6
Authority having no jurisdiction or tainted with an allegation of mala fides, then alone the power of Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised and not otherwise. Interfering with the routine public administration by the High Court is not desirable, which would cause unnecessary inconvenience to the Competent Authorities of the Public Administration.
6. In the present case, the petitioners were transferred on account of the closure of few TASMAC shops through the policy of the Government.
7. Therefore, this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the order of transfer issued by the third respondent during the relevant point of time. Now the petitioners are allowed to continue in the same TASMAC shops. However, the petitioners have no right to claim the place or the post and they are liable to be transferred in the interest of public administration and the Authorities Competent have to exercise the power of transfer judiciously and in the interest of public.
4/6
8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
07-11-2022 Index : Yes/No.
Internet : Yes/No.
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order.
Svn To 1.The Managing Director, Chennai.
2.The Senior Regional Manager, Old Collector's Office, Tiruchirappalli.
3.The District Manager/Deputy Collector, Cuddalore, 4.Assistant Manager (R.V), Kudikadu, Cuddalore-5, 5/6
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn WP 27473 of 2016 07-11-2022 6/6