Ranganathan v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 08.01.2025 Coram:
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN W.P.No. 283 of 2025 & W.M.P.No.325 of 2025 Ranganathan
...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Collector, District Collector Office, Thiruvannamalai District
2. The Assistant Director Office of the Assistant Director, Cheyyar Division, Thiruvannamalai District
3. The Block Development Officer, Annakavur Union, Thiruvannamalai District
...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Proceedings in Na.Ka.UA No.4/3570/2023 dated 22.12.2023 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in his previous place of posting based on the petitioner's representation dated 26.11.2024. Page 1 / 5
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kasirajan For Respondents : Mr.M.Stalin Abhimanyu for R1 and R2 Additional Government Pleader Mr.V.Veluchamy for R3 Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
The present Writ Petition is filed for an issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Proceedings in Na.Ka.UA No.4/3570/2023 dated 22.12.2023 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in his previous place of posting based on the petitioner's representation dated 26.11.2024.
2. The brief facts of the case, as averred by the petitioner are as follows:- The petitioner was appointed as an Panchayat Secretary in the year 1996 at Echur Village Panchayat, Thiruvannamalai District and for the past 27 years, there is no allegation against the petitioner. While so, on 22.12.2023, the 3rd respondent has issued the transfer order to the petitioner, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition. The 3rd respondent, did not conduct any enquiry or inspection and the transfer was made based on discrimination. Though the representation was sent by the petitioner to the respondents citing his wife's health condition, the same was not considered, hence this petition. Page 2 / 5
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that considering the petitioner's represention and his wife's health condition, this petition may be allowed.
4. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleaders appearing for the respondents, who would submit that the petitioner may be directed to give fresh representation to the authorities and the authorities may also be given sufficient time to consider the case of the petitioner.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made on either side, this Court is inclined to direct the petitioner to furnish a fresh representation to the authorities citing all the reasons seeking for re-transfer including the health condition of his wife within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of fresh representation of the petitioner. Page 3 / 5
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
08.01.2025 Index : Yes / No;
Internet : Yes / No Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order ssd To
1. The District Collector, District Collector Office, Thiruvannamalai District
2. The Assistant Director Office of the Assistant Director, Cheyyar Division, Thiruvannamalai District
3. The Block Development Officer, Annakavur Union, Thiruvannamalai District Page 4 / 5
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN , J.
ssd W.P.No.
of 08.01.2025 Page 5 / 5