D.Kandasamy v. The District Revenue Officer

C.KUMARAPPAN , J.

The matter is listed today under the caption "for being mentioned" at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The only grievance raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in para 6 of the order dated 15.07.2025 the word " in the light of the RDO Communication Letter dated 27.06.2025" is inadvertently omitted, though the same mentioned in earlier portion of the order. Therefore, para 6 may be substituted as follows:

"6. While looking at the facts, the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed the order dated 27.06.2025, where there is a reference that the petitioner will be given preference in the ensuing general transfer, however, it is the contention of the petitioner that such preference has not been given. Though the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the impugned order was passed based upon the consent given by the petitioner, he is not in a position to confirm that the present transfer order dated 02.07.2025 1/3

had taken into consideration of the preference referred to in the RDO order. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the above representation of the petitioner, in the light of the RDO communication letter dated 27.06.2025, upon its merits and in accordance with law and pass orders, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

4. In view of the above, Registry is directed to substitute para No.6 and issue a fresh order copy, forthwith.

23.07.2025 ssi 2/3

C.KUMARAPPAN , J.

ssi 23.07.2025 3/3