Livingston Moses .G.L v. The Senior Divisional Manager

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.02.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P. (MD) Nos. 2620 and 2622 of 2022 and W.M.P. (MD) Nos. 2318, 2319, 2322 and 2323 of 2022 G.L.Livingston Moses ... Petitioner in W.P. (MD) No.2620 of 2022 K.Saju Kumar ... Petitioner in W.P. (MD) No.2622 of 2022 Vs.

1.The Senior Divisional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), Madurai.

2.The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), Shenbaga Raman Pudur, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

... Respondents COMMON PRAYER: Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pursuant to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in proceedings Na.Ka.No.233/2022-A1 dated 24.01.2022 and consequential order passed by the second respondent in proceedings Na.Ka.No.A1/724/2021 dated 25.01.2022 and quash the same so far as the petitioner is concerned and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue as Supervisor in Shop No.4821 in Kanyakumari District. For Petitioner in both W.Ps' :

Mr.M.Saravana Kumar For Respondents in both W.Ps' :

Mr.B.Jameel Arasu 1/3

C O M M O N O R D E R The order of transfer issued by the first respondent in proceedings dated 24.01.2022 and the consequential order passed by the second respondent in proceedings dated 25.01.2022 are sought to be quashed in these Writ Petitions. A further direction is sought for to allow the petitioners to work in the same place.

2. The petitioners are working as Supervisors in TASMAC Shop. The petitioners state that they are working without any complaints and discharging their duties to the satisfaction of their superiors. The petitioners narrate certain circumstances under which they performed their duties diligently. However, those circumstances are not relevant, as far as the impugned administrative transfer order is concerned.

3. The order impugned states that the petitioners are directed to be transferred on administrative ground. The first respondent stated in the order itself that in view of the administrative exigency, the transfer orders are issued.

4. Administrative transfers are the prerogative of the employer concerned as transfer is an incidental to service, more so, a condition of service. The Competent Authorities, in the interest of administration and to improve the efficiency, necessarily has to transfer the employees whenever and wherever required. If at all any such transfer order has been issued with a malafide intention, then alone, the aggrieved person can approach the Court of law for appropriate remedy. Even in case of raising an allegation of malafide, the Authorities against whom such an allegation raised must be impleaded as party respondent in his personal capacity. In all other circumstances, the employee has to work wherever he is posted and if the transfer orders are issued on certain administrative exigency in the interest of public, the employee has to join and perform his duties.

5. Place or post can never be claimed as a matter of choice by the public servants. In the present case, the petitioners are working as Supervisors in TASMAC. Even, on some occasions, the employees are transferred on certain complaints. In lieu of suspension, the employees are transferred on other occasions. All these factors are to be considered by the Competent Authority while taking a decision. However, the power of judicial review need not be exercised against the order of administrative transfer, unless it is established that the order of transfer has been issued with a malafide intention or without jurisdiction.

6. In the present case, the petitioners could not able to establish any such acceptable ground for the purpose of entertaining 2/3

the Writ Petitions. The other grievances cannot be a ground to assail the order of administrative transfer. Thus, the petitioners are bound to join in the transferred place in the interest of public and as well as in the interest of administration.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) vji To

1. The Senior Divisional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), Madurai.

2. The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), Shenbaga Raman Pudur, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

+2 CC to M/s.M.SARAVANAKUMAR, Advocate ( SR-5229 & 5231[F] dated 10/02/2022 ) W.P. (MD) Nos. 2620 and 2622 of 2022 and W.M.P. (MD) Nos. 2318, 2319, 2322 and 2323 of 2022 09.02.2022 nsn(CO) GC(22.02.2022) 3P 5C 3/3