Madras High CourtWP/17105/2017dismissed

Tmt.C.Ponnammal v. The Chief Engineer

2017-07-06Honourable Mr Justice S.M. Subramaniam3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 06.07.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM WRIT PETITION No. 17105 of 2017 Tmt.C.Ponnammal ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Chief Engineer, (Personnel), TANGEDCO, No.144, Annasalai, Chennai - 600 002.

2. The Chief Engineer, TANGEDCO, Villupuram Electricity Distribution Circle, Villupuram.

3. The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Thiruvannamalai Electricity Distribution Circle, Thiruvannamalai District.

4. The Executive Engineer (O&M), TANGEDCO, Thiruvannamalai Electricity Distribution Circle, Thiruvannamalai District.

5. The Assistant Engineer (O&M), Central Section, TANGEDCO, Chetpet - 606 801, Thiruvannamalai District.

... Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider and pass orders on the representations of the petitioner dated 21.04.2017, 02.05.2017 and 23.06.2017 requesting for the cancellation of the transfer order passed by the 3rd respondent in Memo No. SET/ Adm. 2/A.1/F. Field Assistant/ 2017 dated 11.04.2017 and provide alternative work instead of field work to the petitioner.

For Petitioner : V.Elangovan

O R D E R

The prayer sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to direct respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representations dated 21st April 2017, 2nd May 2017 and 23rd June 2017 requesting for cancellation of the transfer order passed by the third respondent in Memo No.SET/Adm.2/A.1/F.Field Assistant/2017, dated 11th April 2017.

2. Curiously, the writ petition is filed for a direction to consider the representation in order to cancel the transfer order, which was passed in proceedings dated 11th April 2017 transferring the writ petitioner from Chetpet to Vandavasi. 3.The writ petitioner has not challenged the transfer order, contrarily he has filed the present writ petition for a direction to consider the representations for cancellation of the transfer order. Such a prayer indirectly seeking an approval of this Court for consideration cannot be granted. What the writ petitioner is not able to achieve through the transfer order, is attempting to get through a direction by filing the present writ petition.

4. Thus, the prayer as such sought for deserves no merit consideration. The order of transfer is not under challenge in this writ petition. Further, issuing a direction to consider the representation also requires a right to be established. In other words, a semblance of right is a basic requirement to entertain the writ petition for issuing a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the absence of demonstrating before this Court that the petitioner has got a legal right and such a right is violated, this Court cannot entertain the writ petition nor can act as a special purpose vehicle to carry any recommendation to the officials to consider such kind of administrative transfer orders. The Court cannot be used as an instrument for getting such orders of direction and pressurize the officials to exercise their administrative power of transfer, which is vested under the relevant Rules.

5. This Court is of the firm view that running an administration is a prerogative of the Government, and only if the right of an employee is violated, this Court can entertain the writ petition and issue appropriate direction for redressing the grievances of such employees.

6. Therefore, issuing a direction to consider the representations in a Writ of Mandamus cannot be considered as an advisable practice and such a prayer in the absence of establishing any legal right by the writ petitioner can never be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. In view of this, the writ petition deserves no further consideration and stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar maya To