1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.07.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD)No.5811 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Umadevi .. Petitioner Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation Corporation Limited, Karur Main Road, Mallachipuram, Kambarasampettai (P.O.), Tiruchirapalli – 620 101. .. Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent in connection with the impugned order issued in any by his proceedings M.D's S.O.No.58/2011 (E1) dated 01.06.2011 and quash the same and direct the respondent herein to allow the petitioner to continue in the post of Steno- Typist Grade I in the respondent's office. For Petitioners : Mr.M.Ravi For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen Addl.Govt.Pleader ORDER Being aggrieved by order dated 01.06.2011, transferring the petitioner from the Office of Managing Director, TAFCORN, Trichy District and posting her, to Karaikudi Region in the existing vacancy of Typist, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, contending interalia that the impugned order of transfer is an order of reversion to a lower post. It is her further contention that transferring the petitioner from Trichy to Karikudi during non- transfer period is bad in law. According to her, she is a qualified Typist in Grade-I in the respondent Corporation and she has been reverted to a lower post, on administrative grounds. 2. The impugned order of transfer is justified by the Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation Corporation Limited, Trichy, contending inter alia that the nature of work in respect of the post of Typist, Steno-Typist and Steno-Typist Grade-I&II are all one and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the same, since all the fair copying work in the Units and Head Office have been computerized. It is further submitted that in the unit office at Karaikudi, the post of Steno-Typist/Typist is lying vacant from 10.07.2004. The Regional Manager, Kariakudi has done typing work on daily wage basis, getting permission from the Managing Director, every financial year. The petitioner was transferred and posted at Karaikudi Region, not only as Typist, but also to do Steno- typist work, which is available in the Office. It is the further contention of the respondent that the Regional Manager has requested permission to engage one Steno-Typist or Typist on daily wage basis, and also sent a report stating that daily wage Typists are not doing the fair copying work and that they are coming only for learning the work in the office Computer and there is financial loss to the Corporation. It is his further contention that according to the 'Staff Service Regulation of TAFCORN Rule 25', “A member of service may be required to serve anywhere in the Corporation”. Therefore, in the abovesaid circumstances, the petitioner has been transferred in the cadre of Steno-Typist Grade-I to work at Karaikudi and it is not a reversion to the post of Typist. 3. The contention of the petitioner that she has been transferred during the middle of the academic year, cannot be countenanced for the reason that the petitioner has been working at Trichy Head Office from 04.06.1999, for nearly twelve years and that she has been transferred to Karaikudi Region, in the vacant post of steno-Typist/Typist and not reverted as Typist. No malafide has been pleaded and proved. 4. It is well settled that an order of transfer can be assailed on the ground of mala fide, pleaded and proved and if there is any contravention of statutory rules. Both the grounds have not been substantiated, no interference is called for. It is also well settled that administrative transfer cannot be interfered. 5. In this context, it is useful to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in (AIR 1991 SC 532), wherein it has been held as follows: "In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to- day https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 transfer orders issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders." 6. In N.K. Singh v. Union of India and Ors. reported in (1994) 6 SCC 1998, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the scope of judicial review in matters of transfer of a Government Servant to an equivalent post without adverse consequence on the service or career prospects is very limited being confined only on the grounds of mala fide or violation of any specific provision. 7. In Havaldar Charan Singh v. Union of India, reported in 2000 (6) SLR 715, it is held that the transfer of a member of the disciplined force on administrative grounds cannot be interfered with by the Court. 8. In State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, reported in (2004) III LLJ 749 SC, the Supreme Court has set aside the order of High Court, which interfered with the order of transfer and in paragraphs 7 and 8 reads as follows: 7. It is too late in the day for any government servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 8. A challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the courts or tribunals as though they are Appellate Authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. This is for the reason that courts or tribunals cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent authorities of the State and even allegations of mala fides when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the court or are based on concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made with an order of transfer." 9.In J.K.Bansal v. Union of India, reported in AIR 2005 SCW 4079, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the question of transfer and in paragraph 12 held as follows: 12. It will be noticed that these decisions have been rendered in the case of civilian employees or those who are working in Public Sector Undertakings. The scope of interference by courts in regard to members of armed forces is far more limited and narrow. It is for the higher authorities to decide when and where a member of the armed forces should be posted. The Courts should be extremely slow in interfering with an order of transfer of such category of persons and unless an exceptionally strong case is made out, no interference should be made. 10. In the latest decision in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India reported in 2009 (2) SCC 592, the Supreme Court held that, "An order of transfer in an administrative order. Transfer, which is ordinarily an incident of service should not be interfered with, save in cases where inter alia mala fides on the part of the authority is proved. Mala fides are of two kinds – first, malice in fact and second, malice in law. The order in question would attract the principle of malice in law as it was not based on any factor germane to passing of an order of transfer and based on an irrelevant ground, i.e., on the allegations made against the appellant in an anonymous complaint. It is one thing to say that the employer is entitled to pass an order of transfer in administrative exigencies but it is another thing to say that the order of transfer is passed by way of, or in lieu of punishment. When an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal. No vigilance enquiry was initiated against the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 appellant. Transfer order was passed on material which was non-existent. The order suffers not only from non-application of mind but also suffers from malice in law." 11. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No cost. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation Corporation Limited, Karur Main Road, Mallachipuram, Kambarasampettai (P.O.), Tiruchirapalli – 620 101. +1 CC to Special Government Pleader (SR.No.21850) ORDER MADE IN W.P.(MD)No.5811 of 2011 05.07.2011 MPK NSV/14.07.11/5P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/