← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/18200/2018dismissed

M.Murugan, v. The Director Of Collegiate

2018-08-27Honourable Mr Justice S. Vaidyanathan3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.08.2018 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.(MD).No.18200 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.16101 & 16102 of 2018 M.Murugan

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Director of Collegiate Education, 9th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Building, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

2.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai Region, Madurai-625 002.

3.The Principal, Government Women Arts College, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

... Respondents Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order issued by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.48740/B3/2018-1, dated 13.08.2018 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the first respondent to give effect to the order of transfer passed by the first respondent dated 03.08.2018 in Na.Ka.No.48740/B3/2018-1. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramasamy For Respondents : Mr.S.Dayalan Government Advocate

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the impugned order issued by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.48740/B3/2018-1, dated 13.08.2018 and for a consequential direction the first respondent to give effect to the order of transfer, passed by the first respondent, dated 03.08.2018, in Na.Ka.No.48740/B3/2018-1. 2.The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds at Government Kaide Millath, Chennai on 06.12.2000 and thereafter, the petitioner was transferred and posted in the second respondent Office in the cadre of Junior Assistant and subsequently, on 25.05.2017, the

petitioner was promoted as Superintendent and transferred to the third respondent College. On 12.06.2018, the petitioner sent a representation seeking transfer to the office of the second respondent and the same was forwarded to the first respondent. On the basis of the representation sent by the petitioner, the first respondent accepted the request and passed an order of transfer dated 03.08.2018. But without issuing any notice, on 13.08.2018, the first respondent cancelled the order of transfer and passed the impugned order of cancellation on 13.08.2018. The impugned order was served on the petitioner through online on 14.08.2018. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

3.According to the petitioner, the petitioner's mother is a heart patient and also she is taking treatment in Madurai Hospital. The petitioner's wife is also working as an Office Assistant in the second respondent office. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order passed by the first respondent is totally illegal and non application of mind. He would further submit that the first respondent has not stated any reason for cancelling the order of transfer. The learned counsel would also allege mala fide on the part of the first respondent for cancelling the order of transfer, as, according to him, in order to accommodate a person of his choice, the impugned order has been passed.

4.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner's statement is incorrect and his transfer was also a request transfer. On administrative grounds, the impugned order was passed against the petitioner. The transfer order was passed on 03.08.2018 and the cancellation of transfer order was passed on 13.08.2018. Thus, there is no mala fide reason to cancel the order of transfer. The petitioner was appointed only on compassionate grounds. 5.Even though the petitioner has stated that he has to take care of his mother and based on his representation, he was transferred to Madurai, such request is not at all found place in the original order of transfer dated 03.08.2018. It is clearly spell out that it is an administrative reason.

This Court is of the considered view that there is no mala fide reason to be attributed. Even though the petitioner has stated that the mother was unwell and he was taking care of and also his wife is employed at Madurai, the petitioner has not produced any document about the condition of his mother. Even otherwise, it is an administrative transfer, which is the discretionary power of the authorities and the Court cannot sit on the administrative grounds of the mangement. It is well settled law that transfer is an incident of service. In the present case, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

6.In view of the above, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P & A) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-I) To 1.The Director of Collegiate Education, 9th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Building, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

2.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai Region, Madurai-625 002.

3.The Principal, Government Women Arts College, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

+1 CC To MR.S.RAMASAMY, Advocate SR. NO. 80593 +1 CC TO The Special Government Pleader SR.NO. 80622 W.P.(MD).No.18200 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.16101 & 16102 of 2018 27.08.2018 TSG TR/SV/SAR-I(08.11.2018)3P 6C