IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.01.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.25575 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 A.Jayakumar ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The Principal Secretary, Tourism and Culture Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Principal Secretary and Commissioner, Government Museum, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. 3.The Principal Secretary/ Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Ezhilagam, Chennai – 600 005. 4.C.Munusamy ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records connected with the proceedings issued in Rc.No.Ser.1(3)/DC 125/2009 dt.30.11.2009 passed by the 3rd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1 to 3 respondents to promote the petitioner as Assistant Director (Administration). For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi For Respondents : Mr.A.Arumugham,Spl.G.P. For R1 to R3 O R D E R The petitioner is working as a Superintendent in the Government Museum coming under the control of the second respondent. Since the post of Assistant Director (Administration) which was sanctioned and continuously being renewed within the sanctioned strength of the Museum, the petitioner was made incharge as Assistant Director (Administration). 2. However, the State Government issued order in G.O.(2D) No.590 Revenue Department, dated 27.11.2009 posting the fourth https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent on his own request in the post of Assistant Director (Administration), Government Museum. In the said Government Order, it was stated since the fourth respondent has opted for such transfer, he will not be paid any TA or DA. Consequent upon the Government order, the second respondent by proceedings dated 30.11.2009 transferred the fourth respondent to be posted as Assistant Director(Administration),Government Museum. The petitioner had not chosen to challenge the original order of the Government but challenged the consequential posting order. 3. When the matter came up on 11.12.2009, notice was directed to be taken by the learned Special Government Pleader and a direction was also issued to produce the Government order dated 27.11.2009. Pending such notice, status quo was directed to be maintained. Today, when the matter is called, the learned Special Government Pleader has produced the copy of the Government order, wherein, Government had passed the order posting the fourth respondent in the post of Assistant Director (Administration) without TA or DA as the posting was sought on optional basis. 4. Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi, learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions: a)The post of Assistant Director(Administration) was an upgraded post and it should be given to the petitioner who is the senior most Superintendent in the museum. b)The Tamil Nadu Government officials union supporting the case of the petitioner has also made a representation stating that in the normal practice, the post created in the department should have been filled up by qualified persons in the same department and there was no necessity to transfer some other person from the revenue department. Since the representation is pending consideration with the State Government, the status quo should be continued and a direction should be given to the State to dispose of the said representation. 5. This Court is not inclined to accept either of the submissions. As can be seen from the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.122 Tourism and Culture Department, dated 01.07.2008, the post of Assistant Director (Administration) was included in the sanctioned strength but yet not filled up and the post was kept vacant from the year 2006 onwards. In any event, the fact that such a sanction required shows that it is not merely an upgraded post but a regular post available in the Government museum. The petitioner had not chosen to challenge the order of the State Government in posting the fourth respondent to the post of Assistant Director(Administration). It cannot be said that the Government lacks any such power in transferring its own person from one department to other department or from one post to other post. Only because the petitioner's chances of getting promoted to higher post is either postponed or curtailed cannot be a ground for invalidating the order of the Government in posting the 4th https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent in the present vacancy. If the petitioner's association has a grouse or supporting the case of the petitioner for further promotion, it is for them to work out their rights before the Government and this Court is not inclined to make any direction to direct the Government to consider such representation. 6. In the light of the above, no case is made out by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar Svki To 1.The Principal Secretary, Tourism and Culture Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Principal Secretary and Commissioner, Government Museum, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. 3.The Principal Secretary/ Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Ezhilagam, Chennai – 600 005. 1 cc To Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi, Advocate, SR.2573 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO 2672 W.P.No.25575 of 2009 KS(CO) sra 22.01.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/