1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.10742 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 K.Anbalagan : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai. 2.The District Elementary Educational Officer, District Elementary Education Office, Thanjavur. 3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Assistant Elementary Education Office, Sethubavachathiram Union, Thanjavur District. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 15.09.2011 passed by the second respondent herein in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1619/Aa2/2011 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.D.R.Murugesan ORDER The petitioner has sought for a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the order dated 15.09.2011 of the District Elementary Educational Officer, Thanjavur, transferring the petitioner from Kuruvikarambai Panchayat Union Elementary School to Chellapillaiyar Kovil Union Elementary School. 2. Inviting the attention of this Court to the contents of the impugned order dated 15.09.2011 and placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India reported in (AIR 2009 SC 1399) and in R.Mohanasundaram Vs. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai and Ors reported in (2009 (5) CTC 231), Mr.D.R.Murugesan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of transfer is punitive in nature and if at all there was any complaint regarding his function or indisciplinary conduct , an enquiry ought to have been conducted by the District Elementary Educational Officer, to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioner and that he cannot be simply shifted to a far of place. 3. He further submitted that the reason assigned for transfer in the impugned order that because of the requisitions made by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, the relationship between the Headmaster and the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer was strained and that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 under the said circumstances, there is an administrative exigency, warranting transfer of the petitioner, is arbitrary, nothing but colourable exercise of power. According to the learned counsel, the reasons assigned exhibit mala fide and in such circumstances, the impugned order caused stigma. For the abovesaid reasons, he prayed for intervention. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 5. Pleadings and materials on record disclose that as per the averments in the supporting affidavit, the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Sethubavachathiram Union, Thanjavur District had lodged a complaint on 22.09.2010 against the petitioner before the District Elementary Educational Officer, the second respondent herein. An explanation was sought for. Thereafter, after obtaining a letter from the petitioner to the effect that there would not be any disturbance to the office administration, the petitioner has been warned and the action taken against the petitioner has been stopped. The complaint of the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer was to the effect that there was misbehaviour and that the Headmaster did not discharge his duties properly. 6. A reading of the impugned order further discloses that even after the stopping of the action against the petitioner, the petitioner had been conducting himself, interfering with office administration and had been repeatedly making applications under the Right to Information Act and thus, there is no proper relationship between the petitioner, Headmaster of Kuruvikarambai Panchayat Union Elementary School and the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Sethubavachathiram Union, Thanjavur District. In such circumstances, the impugned order of transfer has been issued. 7. In Somesh Tiwari's case cited supra, the appellant therein had contended that since he had taken action against some erring officers, they were instrumental in sending an anonymous letter, on the basis of whereof no action should have been taken, in the light of the circular letters issued by the Central Vigilance Commission. However, an enquiry was conducted by an Assistant Commissioner, Directorate of Vigilance into the said anonymous complaint, wherein allegations have made against the appellant and it was found that they will not true, but, still recommendations were made that the appellant should be transferred from Bhopal. On that basis, he was transferred to Shillong. He made a representation that as he had been taking some treatment, on compassionate and humanitarian grounds, he should be retained at Bhopal at least for one year. In the abovesaid factual backdrop, he filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench. However, having regard to the fact that the representation of the appellant for retention had not been disposed of by the authorities, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, by its order dated 27.09.2005, directed the respondent No.2 to consider and decide the representation dated 29.08.2005 and take a decision by passing a speaking, detailed and reasoned order, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the abovesaid order. It is also directed that till the decision was taken by the respondent No.2 on the representation stated supra, the appellant will not be disturbed from the present place of posting. Pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, vide order dated 19.10.2005, the representation of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 appellant was rejected. 8. Another representation was filed on 25.10.2005. The said representation was also rejected on 27.10.2005. Challenging the abovesaid order, the appellant filed another Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur. During the pendency of the original application, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, passed an order dated 28.12.2005, transferring the appellant from Shillong to Ahmedabad. The orders dated 22.08.2005, 19.10.2005 and 28.12.2005 were all challenged before the Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal refused to interfere with the interim orders. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant on the premise that he had not joined the post at Ahmedabad. The High Court granted an order of interim stay. On adjudication of the facts and circumstances, the High Court, by opining that the order of transfer could not be passed on the basis of an anonymous complaint, which, on enquiry, having been found to be incorrect, held as follows: "Though, when individually considered, the impact of the incorrect mention of the fact that the petitioner belongs to Madhya Pradesh and does not know English in the order rejecting the Petitioner's representation, except for indicating the extent of absence of application of mind by the respondents, is not fatal. However, the transfer of the petitioner on the ground that he apparently gave an impression that he worked on caste-biased ideology, in spite of the fact of recording a finding in the negative in the discreet inquiry conducted into the anonymous complaint would shock the conscience of any reasonable man to say the least.; It was furthermore opined that as the allegations of having a caste- bias were not found to be true, the order of transfer having been issued by way of punishment was unjustified, stating :- "It is no doubt true that the petitioner or any other member of an All India Service can be transferred to any place (sic) country and is obliged and duty bound to comply with the same, but to transfer him on the ground that some unidentified colleague feels that he is a caste is (sic), in other words only because he belongs to a particular caste, is in violation of his fundamental rights under Article 14, 15(1) and 16(2) of the 8 Constitution of India and is also stigmatic as it would label and identify him, without adjudication or justification, as a person who works on caste- bias for all times to come and would make him vulnerable to all and any such further anonymous complaints as whatever place he is posted and could be used as a convenient tool to take any action against him or move him out as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 and when desired, by any person. Such an action also makes serious in roads into the personal rights of the petitioner as an individual as well as his fundamental rights of the petitioner as an individual as well as his fundamental rights, as the petitioner has apparently been transferred for having a working association with certain colleagues who happen to belong to his caste and which apparently has not found favour with the respondents, thereby giving a clear message to the petitioner to abstain from having any such relation with persons belonging to his own caste in future. The impugned order, if permitted to stand, would amount to opening a Pandora's box and would let loose the very evil that the Constitution seeks to contain and eradicate." 9.In R.Mohanasundaram Vs. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai and Ors reported in (2009 (5) CTC 231), it was contended that the impugned order of transfer though characterized, as one of administrative in nature, the same was made only on the ground of certain adverse remarks false allegations levelled against the petitioner therein. 10.Perusal of the order in R.Mohanasundaram's case shows that even in the counter affidavit the respondents had admitted that there were certain dereliction of duties and irregularities and only on those grounds the impugned order of transfer came to be passed. In this context, it is also worthwhile to reproduce the averments made in the counter affidavit filed in the above case that "the petitioner has such a character of not obeying even his basic duties. The petitioner has not changed his attitude and his performance of duty was below normal. Since there was no improvement in his performance and also registering false case creating unlawful situation in the administration, it necessiated to transfer him to another place where the workload is comparatively lesser than at Kallakurichi. .... Since it was not possible to mention each and every dereliction of his duties, irregularities improper service etc., in the transfer order, in concise it has been stated that the transfer was on administrative grounds. 11.Therefore, in the above case, in the context of the averments made in the counter affidavit, this Court, came to a conclusion that the impugned order of transfer was passed not on administrative grounds, but, on adverse remarks and allegations received against the petitioner. Therefore, the Court had no hesitation to hold that the transfer was punitive and that too, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner therein, to give explanation for such adverse remarks and allegations. In the above reported case, even in the counter affidavit, there was a specific averments regrading the complaint levelled against the petitioner. 12. Perusal of the impugned order shows that earlier on the allegation that the petitioner had not been discharging his duties properly, a complaint has been made by the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Sethubavachathiram Union, Thanjavur District, the 3rd respondent herein in Rc.No.832/A1/2010, dated 22.09.2010. Pursuant to which, the District Elementary Education Officer, Thanjavur, the second respondent herein, vide letter dated 04.10.2010, has sought for explanation. In https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 response to the same, the petitioner, in his explanation, dated 10.11.2010, has stated that he has sought for certain particulars of the teachers working in the above said Union, under the Right to Information Act and that he has also made complaint against the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Sethubavachathiram Union, Thanjavur District, the 3rd respondent herein. In his explanation he has also stated that in future there would not be any inconvenience to the administration and that he would withdraw the complaint. Accepting his explanation and observing that the conduct and the responsibility of a Headmaster in order to conducive for the administration and that considering the length of service and experience, and also of the fact that such incident had occurred for the first time, the petitioner has been warned, vide order dated 27.10.2010, of the District Elementary Education Officer, Thanjavur, the second respondent herein. The petitioner has again started filing petitions to the Public Information Officer, Office of the the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Sethubavachathiram Union, Thanjavur District, and posed as many as 35 questions. 13.Perusal of the petition, dated 22.03.2011, shows that having submitted his explanation to withdraw the earlier complaint, the petitioner has once again, been harping only on the earlier incidents. Some of the questions raised in the petition submitted to the Public Information Officer, Office of the the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Sethubavachathiram Union, Thanjavur District, requires reproduction. "7. vd; kPJ jA;fshy; g[fhh; Twg;gl;l jA;fs; mYtyf e/f/vz;/832- M1-2010 ehs; 22/09/2010 Bjjpapl;l fojj;jpd; xsp efy; tHA;f Bfl;Lf;bfhs;fpBwd;. 8) 18/08/2010 md;W vdJ gs;spia ghh;itapl;l jhA;fs; jiyik Mrphpah; Mh;tKld; bray;gLfpwhh; mth; gzp rpwf;f thH;j;Jf;fs; vd;W gs;sp Ma;t[f; Fwpg;ngl;oy; vGjpa[s;sPhfs;/ Mdhy; jA;fs; fojk; 832-M1- 2010 ehs; 22/09/2010 md;W vdJ fy;tpg;gzpia rhptu bra;atpy;iy vd;Wk. cjtpj; bjhlf;ff; fy;tp mYtyhplk; xGA;fPdkhf ele;J bfhz;ljhft[k; Twp khtl;l bjhlf;ff; fy;tp mYtyUf;F vd;kPJ g[fhh; kDtpid mDg;gpa[s;sPh;fs;/ vjd; mog;gilapy; vd;gij tpsf;fkhf bjhptpf;FkhW Bfl;Lf;bfhs;fpBwd;/ 9) 18/08/2010 f;Fk; 22/09/2010 f;Fk; nilapy; 22 ehl;fs; vA;fs; gs;sp eilbgw;Ws;sJ/ njpy; vj;jid Kiw vdJ gs;spf;F tUif je;jPh;fs;/ vd;bdd;d FiwghLfs; gs;spapy; nUe;jJ FiwghL gw;wpa tpguA;fis ghh;it g[j;jfj;jpy; gjpt[ bra;Js;sPh;fsh> Mk; vd;why; ghh;it efy; jut[k;. ny;iy vd;why; vjw;fhf vd;kPJ jtwhd Fw;wr;rhl;L Rkj;jg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;w tpguj;ij bjhptpf;FkhW Bfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;. 10. vd;kPJ gs;sp khzth;fspd; bgw;Bwhh;fs; ahuhtJ g[fhh;bjhptpj;Js;shh;fsh> Mk; vd;why; g[fhhpd; xsp efy; vdf;F tHA;Fk;go Bfl;Lf;bfhs;fpBwd. 11) vd; kPJ gs;sp Mrphpah;fs; ahuhtJ g[fhh; bjhptpj;Js;shh;fsh> Mk; vd;why; g[fhhpd; xsp efy; vdf;F tHA;Fk;go Bfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6 12) vd; kPJ Mrphpag; gapw;Weh; my;yJ Bkw;ghh;itahsh; ahuhtJ g[fhh; bjhptpj;Js;shh;fsh> Mk; vd;why; [g [fhhpd; xsp efy; vdf;F tHA;Fk;go Bfl;Lf;bfhs;fpBwd;. 13) vd; kPJ bghJkf;fs; my;yJ BtW ahuhtJ g[fhh; bjhptpj;Js;shh;fsh> Mk; vd;why; [g [fhhpd; xsp efy; vdf;F tHA;Fk;go Bfl;Lf;bfhs;fpBwd;. 14)ehd; gzpapy; Brh;e;j 28/07/1999 Kjy; nd;W tiu vd; gzp kPJ ahBuDk; g[fhh; bfhLj;Js;shh;fsh> Mk; vd;why; g[fhhpd; xsp efy; vdf;F tHA;Fk;go Bfl;Lf;bfhs;fpBwd;. 15) jA;fs; mYtyf e/f/vz;/850-M1-2010 ehs; 28/09/2010 md;iwa Bjjpapl;L vdf;F mDg;gpajhf Twg;gLk; Fwpg;ghizapd; xsp efy; ju Bfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;. 16) jA;fs; mYtyf e/f/vz;/850-M1-2010 ehs; 28/09/2010 md;iwa Bjjpapl;L vdf;F mDg;gpajhf Twg;gLk; Fwpg;ghiz vdf;F rhh;g[ bra;ag;gltpy;iy vd;Wk; Fwpg;ghizapd; xsp efy; Bfl;L ehd; jA;fSf;F fle;j 04/11/2010 md;W gjpt[j;jghy; K:yk; jA;fSf;F fojk; mDg;gp nUe;Bjd; (foj vz; 29-2010 ehs;/ 04/11/2010) nJ ehs; tiu vdf;F xsp efy; tH';fg;gltpy;iy/ mjw;fhd fhuzj;ij tpsf;fkhf ju Bfl;Lf;bfhs;fpBwd;. 14. The petitioner has also posed many questions to the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Sethubavachathiram Union, Thanjavur District, the 3rd respondent herein. Few questions, raised by him, are reproduced hereunder:- "20)fy;tpg;gzpia rhptu bra;atpy;iy vd;W Fwpg;gpLk; jhA;fs; Bjrpa Kf;fpaj;Jtk; thae;j kf;fs; bjhif fzf;bfLg;g[ - 2011 gzpf;F Kjd;ik gapw;rpahsuhf xd;wpaj;jpy; nUe;J nuz;L Mrphpah;fs; kl;LBk epakpf;fg;gl;jpy; vd;id ghpe;Jiu bra;jJ vjdhy;> tpsf;fk; ju Bfl;Lf;bfhs;fpBwd;. 24) vd;Dila <n.rp.v!; rk;gsg; gpy; vA;F jahhpf;fg;gLfpwJ. mjw;F xU khjj;jpw;F MFk; bryt[ vt;tst[. bkhj;jkhf U:gha; 100 vd;dplk; tR {y; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ xt;bthU khjKk; Bjitahd U:ghapid rk;gsg; gpy;Yld; thA;fpf;bfhs;syhBk. bkhj;jkhf tR {y; bra;a Btz;oa mtrpak; vd;d> BkYk; mYtyfj;jpy; gzpahsh;fs; gw;whf;Fiw vd;W Twptpl;L midj;J mYtyfg; gzpf;Fk; Mrphpah;fis gad;gLj;Jk; jhA;fs; <n.r.p.v!; gzpapiz kl;Lk; mYtyfj;jpy; bra;ahky; jA;fSf;F Btz;oa egh;fSf;F bfhLf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ njw;fhd tpsf;fj;ij ju Bfl;Lf;bfhs;fpBwd;. 29) xU mrphpahpd; gzpapy; my;yJ gs;sp bjhlh;ghd fy;tpg; gzpfspy; Fiwfs; nUe;jhy; cjtpj; bjhlf;ff; fy;tp mYtyfj;jpy; nUe;J Fwpg;ghiz mDg;gp tpsf;fk; nfl;gJ tHf;fkhd eilKiwahf nUe;J tUfpwJ/ jhA;fs; vd;Dila tpc&aj;jpy; mt;thW gpd;gw;whky; Beuoahf khtl;l bjhlf;ff;fy;tp mYtyhplk; g[fhh; bjhptpj;jJ vjdhy; vd;w tpguj;ij ju Bfl;Lf;bfhs;fpBwd;. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7 30) jA;fs; mYtyfj;jpy; Bghjpa nltrjp nUe;Jk; 1k; tFg;g kw;Wk; 6k; tFg;g[ rkr;rPh; ghlg;g[j;jfA;fs; FUtpf;fuk;ig gs;spapd v.gp.vy; tFg;giwapy; nUg;g[ itf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. njdhy; FUtpf;fuk;ig gs;spf;F gy nila {Wfs; jA;fs; mYtyfj;jhy; Vw;gLj;jg;gl;L tUfpwJ/ nJ Fwpj;J jhA;fs; tpsf;fj;ij ju Bfl;Lf;bfhs;fpBwd. 31) cjtpj; bjhlf;ff; fy;tp mYtyuhfpa ePA;fs; gzpg[hpa[k; xd;wpaj;jpByh my;yJ BtW xd;wpaj;jpByh nUf;Fk; nghJ mt;tHpahf rhiyapy; bry;Yk; jA;fs; xd;wpaj;jpy; gzpg[hpa[k; xU Mrphpaiu tHpkwpj;J gs;sp Beuj;jpy; vA;F bry;fpd;wPh;fs; vd;W Bfl;gjw;F jA;fs; flikfspy; Twg;gl;Ls;sjh> my;yJ VBjDk; tpjpfspy; Twg;gl;Ls;sjh> Mk; vdpy; mjw;fhd murhiz kw;Wk; tpjpfs; nUe;jhy; mjd; xsp efy; jut[k. ny;iy vd;why; jhA;fs; mt;thW ele;J bfhs;tJ Vd;> tpsf;fk; jut[k;.\ 33) jiyik Mrphpauhd ehd; gs;spf;F tUif je;jpUf;Fk;BghJ md;iwa jpdk; eilbgWk; jiyik Mrphpah; Tl;lj;jpw;F vd;Dila cjtp Mrphpaiu mDg;gp itf;fyhkh> my;yJ vd;Dld; xU cjtp Mrphpaiu miHj;Jf;bfhz;L Tl;lj;jpy; fye;J bfhs;syhkh> tptuk; jut[k;. 15.Contending that he was not given the reply, the petitioner has sent another letter, dated 16.03.2011, to the District Elementary Education Officer, Thanjavur, the second respondent herein. As stated supra, though the petitioner, had already submitted an explanation on 11.01.2010, to the show-cause notice, dated 04.10.2010, issued by the District Elementary Educational Officer, Thanjavur, the second respondent herein, again and after warning, the petitioner once again resurrected the very same issue and submitted the petition, dated 16.03.2011, terming it as an appeal to the objections to the report, which had already been finalized by giving a warning. 16.In this context, this Court deems it fit to extract the subject, mentioned in the letter, dated 16.03.2011. "bghUs; fy;tp-bjhlf;ff;fy;tp - BrJghtrhj;jpuk; xd;wpak;, FUtpf;fuk;ig Cuhl;rp xd;wpaj; Jtf;fg;gs;sp jiyik Mrphpauhd vd; kPJ fy;tpg; fzpia rhptur; bra;ahjJ kw;Wk; cjtp bjhlf;ffy;tp mYtyhplk; xGA;fPdkhf ele;Jbfhz;ljhf Twg;Lk; g[fhUf;F Ml;Brgid bjhptpj;J Bky; KiwaPL bra;jy; bjhlh;ghf" 17. Again he has sent a petition, dated 15.04.2011. Admittedly, the proceedings, dated 27.10.2010, has not been challenged before the higher authorities. He has not denied the contents of the explanation, dated 10.07.2010. The explanation of the petitioner, as extracted in the order dated 27.1.2010, of the District Elementary Education Officer, Thanjavur, the second respondent herein, is reproduced:- "jw;BghJ me;j jiyikahrphpah;, BrJghtrhj;jpuk; cjtp bjhlf;ffy;tp mYtyfj;jpy; ;fuk;ig Cuhl;rp xd;wpaj; Jtf;fg;gs;sp Mrphpah;fs; rhh;ghd jfty;fis jftywpa[k; chpikr; rl;lj;jpd; fPH; Bfhhpajhft[k;, cjtp bjhlf;ffy;tp mYtyfh; kPJ g[fhh; bjhptpj;jpUe;jjhft [k; jw;BghJ KGkdJld; jhd; bfhLj;j g[fhh; kw;Wk; jftywpa[k; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8 rl;lj;jpd;fPH; bfhLj;j fojj;jpid jpUk;gg; bgw;Wf;bfhs;fpBwd; vd;W bjhptpj;J tUA;fhyj;jpy; jd;dhy; eph;thfj;jpw;F ve;etpj nila {Wk; Vw;glhJ vdt[k; bjhptpj;Js;shh;." 18. Thus it could be seen from the sequence of events that having suffered an order of warning from the District Elementary Education Officer, Thanjavur, the second respondent herein, the petitioner obsess with incidents, has started sending objections one after another, to the Public Information Officer, Office of the the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Sethubavachathiram Union, Thanjavur District, seeking for explanation from the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Sethubavachathiram Union, Thanjavur District, the 3rd respondent herein, and also sought for explanation from the said authority regarding his functioning. 19.No doubt, the provisions of Right to Information Act provide a Right to any person to seek for details, regarding on any subject, except the exemptions provided under relevant Section of the said Act. But, perusal of the petitions repeatedly addressed to the Public Information Officer, Office of the the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Sethubavachathiram Union, Thanjavur District, makes it clear that the petitioner has not inclined to have a proper approach in administration and that has been questioning the superior officers on various issues. 20. In this context, it is worthwhile to extract a decision of the Supreme Court in N.K.Singh Vs. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 1304, has held that the assessment of the worth has been left to the bona fide decision of the superiors in service and their honest assessment accepted, as a part of service discipline. There may be several imponderables requiring formation of a subjective opinion in that sphere may be involved at time. The Apex Court further observed, only the realistic approach is to leave it to the wisdom of that hierarchical superior to make that decision. Unless the decision is vitiated by mala fides or infractions, of any professed norms or principles governing the transfer, which alone can be scrutinized judicially. There is no judicially managable stand for scrutinizing all transfers and the Courts lack the necessary expertise for personnel management of all Government departments. 21.It is well known that transfer is an incidence of service and the same could be interfered with only on the following grounds;- This Court also held that an order of transfer can be interfered with only on three grounds;- “a.When the order is mala fide b. If it is in violation of statutory provisions, or c. The order has been passed by an authority not competent.” 22. Reference can also be made to few decisions:- (1) In yet another decision of this Court in Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., V. T.Venkatesan, reported in (1992 I LLN 627), https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9 wherein, another esteemed Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.Srinivasan, (as He then was)) held as follows ;- "The right sought to be enforced is not a common law right. A perusal of the plaint shows that the only ground on which the order of transfer is challenged is that it is a mala fide act of victimization and punishment. It is not the case of the plaintiff that there is any violation of the terms of the contract of service. It is not in dispute that the order of appointment under which the respondent entered in service with the petitioners contained specific clause that he may be transferred to any section/department/branch of the establishment. It is not the case of the respondent that the said clause is in violation of any provision in the Contract Act or any other Statute. This is not a case in which the respondent is seeking to enforce the contract between him and the petitioners; nor is it a case based on a breach of contract. No doubt, there is a passing reference in Para 12 of the plaint that the order of transfer is also contrary to the transfer policy, i.e., a staff will not be transferred from one place to another before completion of three years. There is no averment in the plaint that the so called transfer policy forms part of the contract between the plaintiff and the defendants." "A right to challenge an order of transfer on the ground of mala fides or victimization cannot be equated with the right to get wages during the pendency of the proceeding in a High Court or the Supreme Court by an employer against the award passed by a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal directing reinstatement of workman." "In this case, it is not in dispute that the employees' union of which the plaintiff is the Vice- President, has already initiated proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondent having initiated proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act is not entitled to maintain the suit in Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the same. The orders of the Civil Court below are set aside." (2) In B. Varada Rao v. State of Karnataka (1986-II-LLJ-516), the Supreme Court held that it is well understood that transfer of Government servant, who is appointed to a particular cadre of transferable post from one place to another is an ordinary incident of service and therefore, does not result in any alteration of any of the conditions of service to his disadvantage. The Supreme Court declined to accept the case of the petitioner therein, that he should not be transferred. (3) In V.Jagannadha Rao Vs. State of A.P.and Others reported in 2010 10 SCC 401, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10 Transfer in relation to service reduced to simple terms means a change of place of employment within an organization. It is an incidence of public service and generally does not require the consent of the employee. In most service rules, there are express provisions relating to transfer. Though definitions may differ and in many cases transfer is conceived in wider terms as a movement to any other place or branch of the organization , transfer essentially is to a similar post in the same cadre. A government servant is liable to be transferred to a similar post in the same cadre which is a normal feature and incidence of government service and no government servant can claim to remain in a particular place or in a particular post unless, of course, his appointment itself is to a specified non-transferable post. No transfer is made to a post higher than what a government servant is holding. In other words, it is generally a lateral and not vertical movement within the employer's organization. (4). Now let we consider some of the judgments related to the transfer. In B.VARADA RAO v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 1986 (II) LLJ 516, the Supreme Court has held that it is well understood that transfer of Government servant, who is appointed to a particular cadre of transferable post from one place to another is an ordinary incident of service and therefore, does