1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD).No.10126 of 2011 S.Muthu Ravuthan, President, Thamilaga Sathunavu Oozhiyar Sangam, Madurai District. : Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Madurai District. 2.The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Union Office, Melur. 3.M.Jeyachitra, Noonmeal Organiser, Government High School, E.Malampatti, Melur Union, Madurai District. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's petition dated 19.02.2010 for cancelling the transfer order of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.3786/2009-A5, dated 10.02.2010 and reinstate her in the old place of appointment. For Petitioner : M/s.S.Samuel James Devasagayam For Respondents : Mr.TR.Janarthanan 1 & 2 Additional Government Pleader ORDER This writ petition has been filed by S.Muthu Ravuthan, President, Thamilaga Sathunavu Oozhiyar Sangam, Madurai District on behalf of the third respondent M.Jeyachitra, Noon-meal Organiser, who has suffered by the order of transfer passed by the District Collector, Madurai, vide his proceedings No. Na.Ka.No.3786/2009-M5, dated 10.02.2010, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's petition dated 19.02.2010 for cancelling the transfer order of the third respondent and reinstate her in the old place of appointment. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the third respondent M.Jeyachitra, has joined as noon-meal organiser in the month of July, 2009 in Kannan Vidyalaya, Ulaganathapuram, Melur union. She was transferred to Government High School at E.Malampatti. This has caused great prejudice and grave injustice to the third respondent. Therefore, when a representation was given to the first respondent to cancel the transfer order transferring the third respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the first respondent did not consider the representation. As a result of which, this writ petition came to be filed. 3. It is a settled law that a person who is aggrieved by way of transfer or depromotion alone can challenge the said order. But, in the present case, the third respondent has not come to this Court. On behalf of her, the President of the Sathunavu Oozhiyar Sangam has come to this Court. Therefore, when the petitioner has no locus standi, there is no merits in the present writ petition and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. Yet another reason warrants dismissal of the writ petition is that the transfer order was passed on 10.02.2010, even after accepting the transfer order, the petitioner has come to the Court after one and half years. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. costs. sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To 1.The District Collector, Madurai District. 2.The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Union Office, Melur. 3.M.Jeyachitra, Noonmeal Organiser, Government High School, E.Malampatti, Melur Union, Madurai District. + 1 cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR No.35274 W.P.(MD).No.10126 of 2011 11.10.2011 srm RJ/18.11.11 2p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/