1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(md).No.8630 of 2011 S.Maripandian ... Petitioner Vs. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli ... Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of transfer by the respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2018/2011/Pa2 dated 11.07.2011 quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to retain the petitioner in the same position as Office Assistant in Kurtralam Special Grade Town Panchayat. For Petitioner : Ms.J.Balameenakshi For respondents : Mr.B.Pugalenthi Special Govt. Pleader O R D E R Placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.205 Rural Development Department dated 23.03.1989 in short the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayats Establishment Rules, 1988 and a circular in R.C.No.No.874/2008 A3 dated 04.02.2008, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order of transfer is contrary to the abovesaid rule and circular. Hence it needs interference. The order is also assailed by the petitioner on the ground that it has been issued to fill up a vacancy for the post of Office Assistant in Rayagiri Town Panchayat which is against the resolution of the said Town Panchayat. According to the petitioner, there is no administrative ground in effecting transfer. The petitioner is working in a non-transferable post and hence the order is bad in law. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2.Mr.B.Pugalendhi, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice. 3.Heard the pleadings of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent. 4.Perusal of G.O.Ms.No.205 Rural Development Department dated 23.03.1989 shows that in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of section 58 and sub-section (1) of section 178 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958 (Tamil Nadu Act XXXV of 1958), rules have been framed, in short called the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayats (Establishment) Rules, 1988, Office Assistant is shown under the post falling under Clause I Category I. 5.The rule does not say anything about transfers. However reading of the circular, shows that each Town Panchayat is treated as a single unit. It states that in the case of employees serving in Town Panchayats, who are non- provincialized, transfer should not be made from one District to another District, as it causes administrative inconvenience. No rule or regulation has been placed before this court to substantiate the contention that an Office Assistant working in a Town Panchayat, cannot at all be transferred to another Town Panchayat on administrative grounds by the District Collector, who is the Inspector of Panchayats and District Administration. Transfer from one District to another District has been directed not to be and not within the District. 6.Though a town panchayat has been directed to be treated as a single unit, a person who has been transferred to some other unit, the another town panchayat, can always ventilate his grievance if there is going to be any downgradation of seniority in the transferred unit. Chances of promotion in one particular unit, cannot be a ground to challenge an order of transfer, as the same has not been recognised as a right, going rise to cause of action. The main contention of the petitioner is that the post of Office Assistant in a Town Panchayat is a non-transferable post as per G.O.Ms.No.205 dated 23.03.1989. Such contention cannot be accepted for the reason that an employee of the panchayat, is liable for transfer so long his seniority and service conditions https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 attached to the post are not varied. For the purpose of clarification, this court deems it fit to extract the memorandum dated 04.02.2008 and it reads as follows: tpLeh; “ lhf;lh ; Nf.Nfhghy;> ,.M.g.> NgUuhl;rpfspd; Mizah;> Fwsfk;. nrd;id-108. ngWeh; NgUuhl;rpfs; cjtp ,af;Feh ;> midj;J kz;lyq;fs ;. e.f.vz;.874/2008 m3 ehs; 04.02.2008. ma;ah> nghUs;: gzpaikg;G -NgUuhl;rpfs; eph;thfk; - NgUuhl;rpfspy; gzpghpAk; muR epiyahf;fg ;glhj gzpahsh;fspd; khWjy; NfhUk; Nfhhpf;if Fwpj;J rpy mwpTiufs; toq;Fjy ; - rhh;e ;jJ. ghh;it: murhiz vz;.205 Cuf tsh;r ;rpj ; Jiw ehs; 23.03.1989. NgUuhl;rpfspy; gzpghpfpd ;w muR epiyahf;fg ;glhj gzpahsh;fs ; gy;NtW fhuzq;fspd; mog;gilapy; xU khtl;lj ;jpYs;s NgUuhl;rpapypUe;J kw;nwhU khtl;lj ;jpYs;s NgUuhl;rpf;F khWjy; NfhUk; Nehpil tpz;zg ;gq ;fs ; kw;Wk ; rk;ke ;jg ;gl ;l kz;ly NgUuhl;rpfspd; cjtp ,af;Feh ;fshy; ghpe;Jiuf;fg ;gl ;l tpz;zg ;gq ;fs ; Mfpait gy;NtW topKiwfs; tHpahf ,t;tpaf;fj ;jpw ;F tug;ngWfpd;wd. 2.ghh;itapy; fhZk; murhizapy; tFf;fg ;gl ;l newpKiwfspd;gb muR epiyahf;fg ;glhj gzpahsh;fis nghWj;jtiu xt;nthU NgUuhl;rpAk; jdp myfhFk;. epakd mYtyh; nray; mYtyh; MFk;. muR epiyahf;fg ;glhj gzpahsh;fs ; NgUuhl;rp gzpahsh;fs ; Mth;. XU khtl;lj ;ij rhh;e ;j NgUuhl;rpahd jdp myfpypUe;J NtnwhU khtl;lj ;jpYs;s jdp myfhd NgUuhl;rpf ;F muR epiyahf;fg ;glhj gzpahsh;fs ; khWjy; NfhUtJ eph;thf ,lh;ghLfis Vw;gLj ;jp gy eph;thf https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 rpf;fy ;fis Vw;gLj;JfpwJ. 3.vdNt> eph;thf eydpd; mbg;gilapy; ,ijj; jtph;f ;f chpa mwpTiuapid nray; mYtyh; Kykhf midj;J muR epiyahf;fg ;glhj gzpahsh;fSf ;F mspf;Fk ;gb Nfl;Lf ; nfhs;sg ;gLfpwJ. Xk;/- Nf.Nfhghy;> Mizah;. ” The District Collector being the Inspector of panchayats and Administrative Head, is empowered to transfer the petitioner, within the District. For the reasons stated supra, this court is of the view that there is no merits in this writ petition. 7.This writ petition is dismissed accordingly. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 are also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Records) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli +One cc to The Spl.GOvt. Pleader, SR.No.26144 +One cc to M/s.J.Balameenakshi, Advocate, SR.No.25881 vs rl/4c – 16.8.2011 W.P.(MD).No.8630 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/