IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 13.12.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH W.P.No.22851 of 2010 and M.P.Nos.1 to 4 of 2010 E.Devasahayam ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai- 600 015. 2.The Field Director/Chief Conservator of Forests, Project Tiger, Tirunelveli – 627 007. 3.The Conservator of Forests, Virudhunagar Circle, Virudhunagar. 4.The Deputy Director, Project Tiger, Kalakkad Sanctuary, Kalakadu, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent relating to the order in Ref.No.B2/1639/2010, dated 25.08.2010 and S.O.No.105/2010.E, dated ..09.2010 (C.No.1900/ 2010.E., dated 14.09.2010) of the third respondent, quash the same and issue consequential direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to serve as Forest Ranger, Tirukarungudi Range till retirement. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ravi For Respondents : Mr.S.N.Kirubanandam, Special Government Pleader (Forest) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDER The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the proceedings of the first respondent dated 25.08.2010 and the consequential order of the third respondent dated 14.09.2010 whereby the petitioner was transferred to Virudhunagar Circle from Kalakkad Sanctuary, Project Tiger, Tirunelveli. 2. The petitioner has been working as a Ranger with the respondents. An application was made by the petitioner on 26.05.2010, seeking for a transfer to Rajapalayam Range, Srivilliputhur, Wildlife Division, Virudhunagar Circle on the ground that the said transfer is required in the interest of his children. The petitioner has also stated in his application that the Ranger who has been working in Rajapalayam Circle has been retiring on 31.05.2010. However, the petitioner's request was not considered and the said post, which became vacant in pursuant to the retirement of the then Ranger Rajagopal was subsequently filled up with some other Officer. The petitioner thereafter made an application on 10.06.2010, seeking a transfer to Boothapandi Range in Kanniyakumari Division. The said request was also rejected. 3. Thereafter, an order was passed on 25.08.2010 by the first respondent transferring him to Virudhunagar Circle in the existing vacancy from the post of Ranger, Kalakkad Sanctuary, Project Tiger Tirunelveli. Consequent on the order of the first respondent, an order was passed by the third respondent posting the petitioner as Ranger in Virudhunagar Social Forestry Division in the existing vacancy. Thereafter, the petitioner has made subsequent representations on 22.09.2010, 24.09.2010, 28.09.2010 and 29.09.2010 respectively. Since the orders impugned were not cancelled, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition. 4.Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned has been passed on the representation of the petitioner dated 26.05.2010. The petitioner has made a representation on 26.05.2010, seeking transfer only to the Rajapalalyam Range and not to any other place. Since the said post was filled up, the petitioner made another representation thereafter on 10.06.2010. The said request was also rejected. Therefore, when the petitioner's request was rejected on earlier two occasions, the respondents cannot pass an order transferring the petitioner to Virudhunagar Social Forestry Range based upon the request of transfer made by the petitioner to a specific place. The learned counsel further submitted that when the petitioner has not asked for the posting as a Ranger in Virudhunagar Social https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Forestry, the order impugned cannot be sustained inasmuch as there is no request in the eye of law. 5.Per contra, Mr.S.N.Kirubanandam, learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) for the respondents submitted that the order impugned has been passed based upon the request made by the petitioner. The petitioner after making a request cannot change his stand and say that the order impugned cannot be sustained inasmuch as the respondents being the competent Authority having a jurisdiction to pass an order of transfer coupled with the fact that the petitioner being a Government Servant having his service amenable to transfer cannot change the orders impugned. Therefore, the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) for the respondents submitted that the writ petition will have to be dismissed. 6.Conceadedly, the respondents have the power of transfer and a transfer is incidental to service and the employee concerned cannot question the same when it is based on administrative reasons. However, it is seen from the perusal of the order impugned dated 25.08.2010 that it has been passed only on the request made by the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner has made a request for a specific place namely to Rajapalayam Range in Srivilliputhur Wildlife Division of Virudhunagar Circle. The said fact has also been reiterated by the first respondent in Para 6 of the Counter Affidavit filed. The reliance made by the respondents in Letter No.23847/S/98-1, dated 05.08.1998, which provides for clarifications and directions for considering the applications made for request of transferring also cannot be accepted. In fact, a perusal of the said letter dated 05.08.1998 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu would clearly stipulate the fact that a request for transfer shall not be registered when it has been made to a specific post. The said position was also clarified to the effect that in a case where such a request is wrongly registered for a specific post, then the same is liable to be cancelled. The relevant provisions are extracted here under: "(k)Requests for transfer/manual transfer shall not be registered in the following cases and even if registered, shall be cancelled under the following circumstances: (i)If the Applicant has not already completed or would not complete in the next transfer period a service of atleast one year in the post from which he requests for a transfer. (ii)If the Applicant has been granted a transfer / mutual transfer at his request at any time during the last two years, meaning that he can register an advance requests for a transfer when his next transfer is normally due. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iii)If the request is for transfer to native place/district, if the departmental rules prohibit such transfers to native place/district. (iv)If a request is made for appointment to a specific post (Requests can be made only for posting to a place or a zone, as the case may be)." 7.Therefore, it is very clear from the letter dated 05.08.1998 which has been relied upon by the respondents that the said letter clearly stipulates that a request for posting to a specific post cannot be considered and registered and even if it is done so, the same will have to be cancelled. Admittedly, the petitioner herein has made a request to a specific post which was rejected earlier. The petitioner has made a subsequent request to some other post which is also rejected. It is further to be seen that the petitioner has not made any request for posting in any other place in Virudhunagar Circle. 8.The above said facts would clearly indicate that the petitioner has not made any request for any other place in Virudhunagar Circle. The petitioner has made only the request for transfer to Rajapalayam Range alone which was not considered. Therefore, the petitioner's registration itself ought not to have been entered and in any case, the same cannot be construed as a request for some other place. Accordingly, the basis upon which the order impugned was passed cannot be sustained and is contrary to the very same letter which is said to have been relied upon by the respondents. It is no doubt true that the transfer is incidental to the service and when the same is effected on an administrative ground, the same cannot be contested before the Court of Law. However, when the reasons based upon which the transfer is effected is totally wrong and not available, then, such an order cannot be sustained. It is very clear that, but for the application of the petitioner, the order impugned would not have been passed. Therefore, the order impugned also cannot be sustained for the non-application of mind on the part of the respondents. 9. Accordingly, the order impugned which is said to have been passed on the request of the petitioner cannot be sustained. The Writ Petition is allowed. Further, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the power to the respondents to effect transfer. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. mps To 1.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai- 600 015. 2.The Field Director/Chief Conservator of Forests, Project Tiger, Tirunelveli – 627 007. 3.The Conservator of Forests, Virudhunagar Circle, Virudhunagar. 4.The Deputy Director, Project Tiger, Kalakkad Sanctuary, Kalakadu, Tirunelveli District. 1 cc to Special government Pleader, Sr. 88950 1 cc to M/s. M. Ravi, Advocate, Sr. 89229 W.P.No.22851 of 2010 and M.P.Nos.1 to 4 of 2010 KSK (CO) kk 6/1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/