Madras High CourtWP(MD)/17616/2025dismissed

Senthilkumar v. The Director,

2025-06-30Honourable Mr.Justice Vivek Kumar Singh6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.06.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH W.P.(MD) No.17616 of 2025 and WMP (MD) Nos.13452 and 13453 of 2025 Senthilkumar : Petitioner Vs.

1. The Director, Department of Horticulture and Plantation Crops No.1, Wallaja Road, PWD Estate, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

2. The Director, No.1, Wallaja Road, PWD Estate, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

3. The Director / Commissioner, Department of Agricultural Marketing and Agri Business, T.V.K.Salai, Cipet Road, Guindy, Chennai 600032.

1/6

4. The Deputy Director, Department of Horticulture, Tiruvannamalai,

5. The Deputy Director, Thanjavur.

6. Deivanai, Superintendent, Office of the Deputy Director, Thanjavur.

: Respondents P RAYER:

Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned Transfer order passed by the third respondent through his proceedings in Se.Mu.AA No. Ponipi2/11063/2025 dated 04.06.2025 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to issue an order of transfer in favour of the petitioner transferring him from the office of the 4th respondent to the office of the fifth respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Venkatesan For Respondents : Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R5

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed to challenge the impugned transfer order issued by the third respondent in respect of the sixth respondent.

2/6

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 submitted that the petitioner has challenged the transfer order issued in respect of the sixth respondent and hence, lacks the locus standi to maintain the present writ petition.

4. It is a well-settled principle in service jurisprudence that transfer is an incidence of service and falls within the domain of the employer to ensure administrative exigency and efficiency. Courts have consistently held that interference in transfer matters is warranted only when the order is shown to be vitiated by mala fides, issued in contravention of statutory rules or made in a vindictive manner. In the present case, the petitioner has challenged the transfer order issued in respect of the sixth respondent. However, the petitioner is neither the transferee nor the transferor and no personal or legal right of the 3/6

petitioner has been shown to have been infringed. The petitioner has also not substantiated any allegation of mala fides or violation of statutory provisions in the issuance of the said transfer order.

5. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, no interference is warranted with the impugned transfer order. This writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 30.06.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No PKN 4/6