S.Pushpakanthan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04..07..2023 Coram THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR Writ Petition No.17032 of 2023 and M.P.Nos.16217 & 16220 of 2023 S.Pushpakanthan ..... Petitioner -Versus1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Master Plan Complex, Villupuram 2.Vallal Pari 3.N.Kamarajan 4.S.Sathish Kumar 5.N.Gopinath 6.S.Karthikeyan [Respondents 2 to 6 impleaded as per order of this court dated 04.07.2022 made in W.M.P.No.18892 of 2023] ..... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.A1/4305/2022 dated 23.05.2023 and to
quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned and consequently forbear the 1st respondent from in any way disturbing the petitioner from working in the existing place Poonthottam Village, Villupuram District. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Soundar Raj For Respondents : Mr.P.Baladhandayutham, Spl. Government Pleader for R1 Mr.P.G.Thiyagu for RR2 to 6
ORDER
This writ petition challenges the order of transfer dated 23.05.2023 passed by the 1st respondent.
2. The case of the petitioner is that immediately within one month after the mutual transfer of the petitioner, the petitioner was re-transferred to his original place.
3. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner, in order to prevent his name from being brought from pooling into general counselling, two months prior to the general counselling, the petitioner had some how managed to get the help from one of his colleague and had managed to avoid his name from being included in the general counselling and got mutual transfer. However, after having received objections from the other Village Administrative Officers, the mutual transfer was reconsidered and the
petitioner was restored to his original place.
4. This court is of the view that the transfer is incidental to service, more so, a condition of service. This court perused the entire material placed before it. No motive is attributable to the 1st respondent in re transferring the petitioner to his original place. Therefore, this court is of the view that the impugned order of transfer does not require any interference at the hands of this court and the writ petition deserves only to be dismissed. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected MPs are closed.
04..07..2023 Index : yes / no : yes / no Speaking / Non Speaking Order kmk To 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Master Plan Complex, Villupuram
N.SATHISH KUMAR.J., kmk 04..07..2023 2/2