1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.(MD)Nos.10891 & 10892 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 W.P.(MD)No.10891 of 2011: M.Namperumal ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Karur District. 2.M.Anbalagan ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.Pava 6/8170/2010-1 dated 13.08.2011 and quash the same as illegal. W.P.(MD)No.10892 of 2011: Jeyalakshmi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Karur District. 2.M.Pitchaimani ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.Pava 6/8170/2010-3 dated 13.08.2011 and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.M.Govindan, Spl.G.P. COMMON ORDER Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. By consent, these Writ petitions itself are taken up for final hearing. 2.These Writ petitioners challenge the orders of transfer made by the 1st respondent in respect of the 2nd respondent, who is working as a Panchayat Assistant. On the face of it, the Writ Petitions are not maintainable. 3.Admittedly, the Code of Contact for the Panchayat election has come into effect. The power of the 1st respondent in making transfer of a Panchayat Assistant, within the District is not in dispute. The only https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 reason given is that the 2nd respondent, who was earlier working in the petitioners Panchayat Union as a Panchayat Assistant was transferred to some other place, since the 2nd respondent was not cooperating in various efforts taken by the President of the Panchayat and presently, by the impugned order, the 2nd respondent has been retransferred, which will hamper the development of the Panchayat. 4.Inasmuch as the 2nd respondent is liable to be transferred within the District and the 1st respondent has jurisdiction to do so, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent. However, it is made clear that if the petitioners got elected in the Panchayat election and after assessing the performance of the 2nd respondent, the same is not conducive for the betterment of the Panchayat administration, it is always open to the petitioners to make appropriate request to the 1st respondent/District Collector for the purpose of transfer of the 2nd respondent. 5.With the above said observation, the Writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps.are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The District Collector, Karur District. +2CC TO MR.B.SARAVANAN, ADVOCATE SR.33134, 33135 +1CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR.33091 Nbj SR : 10.10.2011 : 2p/5c W.P.(MD)Nos.10891 & 10892 of 2011 23.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/