1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12/07/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD) No.7672 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Veerasamy ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chief Conservator of Forests, Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, Chennai – 15. 2.The Conservator of Forests, Dindigul Circle, Dindigul. 3.The District Forest Officer, Kodaikkanal Division, Kodaikkanal. 4.D.Sampath, The District Forest Officer, Kodaikkanal Division, Kodaikkanal, Dindigul District. 5.Krishnan Menon. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records from the 3rd respondent in his proceedings in gzpMiz vz;.63/2011 g.2, Dated 07.07.2011 and quash the same. For petitioner .. Mr.N.Sathish Babu For Respondents .. Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen Addl Government Pleader O R D E R Challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 07.07.2011 of the District Forest Officer, Kodiakanal, Dindigul District, who has been impleaded in his personal capacity alleging mala fides. 2.It is the case of the petitioner that while he was working as a driver in the Office of the 3rd respondent, the vehicle met with an accident and sustained severe injuries on his left hand and therefore, he made a request to the 3rd respondent to permit him to drive a light motor vehicle. The 3rd respondent, vide order dated 08.04.2008, transferred the petitioner to the post of Jeep driver (LMV) available in the office. That being so, by impugned order dated 07.07.2011, to accommodate the 5th respondent, working as a driver in the Office of District Forest Officer, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District, the petitioner has been transferred, to the post of lorry driver, in the office of the 3rd respondent . https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.Assailing the correctness of the order, Mr.N.Sathish Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that only due the injuries sustained by the writ petitioner, he was permitted to drive Jeep (LMV) and therefore, submitted that the 3rd respondent ought to have considered the above said aspect, while passing the impugned order. It is his further submission that the impugned order of transfer has been passed only to accommodate the 5th respondent, who has made a request for transfer and in such circumstances, the transfer order is tainted with mala fide. 4.Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted that the impugned transfer has been passed purely on administrative grounds and in the absence of any malafide alleged and produced against the respondents, the impugned order does not call for interference. For the abovesaid reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 6.Perusal of the materials on record disclose that on the request of the petitioner, by order dated 08.04.2011, the District Forest Officer, Kodaikkanal, Dindigul District, has permitted the petitioner to drive Jeep (LMV). The contention that the 3rd respondent has overlooked his earlier order, that there is a mala fide in considering the representation of the 5th respondent and only to accommodate him in the said post, the impugned order, dated 07.07.2011, has been passed, cannot be countenanced for the reason that perusal of the impugned order shows that it is purely on administrative grounds, to fill up a post of lorry driver, lying vacant for more than three years, and the mala fide alleged is not substantiated. It is well settled that in catena of decisions, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made it clear that unless an order of transfer is passed mala fide or contrary to the provisions of Statutory Rules, the same should not be interfered with. Reference can be made to the decisions of the Hon'le Supreme Court, on the above aspect of transfer. 7.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. 8. In N.K.Singh Vs. Union of India reported in (1995-I-LLJ-854) the Supreme Court has observed that no roving inquiry into the matter is called for or justified within the scope of judicial review of a transfer scrutinized with reference to the private rights of an individual. It was further held that transfer of a Government servant in a transferable service is a necessary incident of the service career and that assessment of the quality of men is to be made by the superiors taking into account several factors including suitability of the person for a particular post and exigencies of administration. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 9.In Novartis India Limited Vs. State of West Bengal and Others, reported in (2009(3) SCC 124), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph No.34, has held as follows:- “34. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that ordinarily an employee who has been transferred should, subject to just exceptions, join at his transferred place....Admittedly the respondents were challenging the right of the employer to order transfer of the employee particularly when they hold some posts in the association. The dispute was subjudice. They were in their late fiftees. They had served the company for a period of more than 25 years. It is true that they did not join at their transferred posts within a reasonable time. It may also in an ordinary situation be held that seven months is too long a period to join at the transferred place. There cannot furthermore be any doubt that the transfer is an incidence of service. Unless an order of transfer is passed contrary to the provisions of the statutory rule or settlement, the same should not be interfered.” 10.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:- 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. 11.Further, even assuming that the request made by the 5th respondent has been considered, there is no restriction in the rules, to consider any request. Even the petitioner's earlier transfer was made on request. When the petitioner gained a benefit of transfer on his request, it is not open to him to contend that others should not be transferred on request. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 12.For the reasons stated supra, this Court is of the view that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Chief Conservator of Forests, Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, Chennai – 15. 2.The Conservator of Forests, Dindigul Circle, Dindigul. 3.The District Forest Officer, Kodaikkanal Division, Kodaikkanal. +1cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.22878 Mpk RPB : 21.07.2011 : 4p/5c : IT W.P.(MD) No.7672 of 2011 12.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/