1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:01.03.2011. CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN W.P.(MD)No.1934 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 C.Rajendran S/o.Chinna Mayandi Work Inspector (Special Grade) Water Resources Organisation Public Works Department Vaigai Dam Sub Division Vaigai Dam, Theni District. .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Superintending Engineer Periyar-Vaigai Basin Circle, Water Resources organisation, Public Works Department No.46 North Chithirai Street, Madurai - 01 2.The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Organisation, Public Works Department Periyar-Vaigai Basin division, Thallakulam Madurai-02 .. Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent proceeding in Che.Mu.Order No.E3/700/2011 dated 14.02.2011 and subsequent communication of the second respondent in U.MU.KA.No.E2/285/2011 dated 15.02.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to work as Work Inspector in his original place at Vaigai dam Sub Division, Vaigai Dam, Theni District. For petitioner : Mr.V.Thirumal For respondents : Mr.V.Rajasekaran Special Government Pleader O R D E R By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. An order of transfer passed by the first respondent in Che.Mu.Order No.E3/700/2011 dated 14.02.2011 and also the subsequent communication of the second respondent dated 15.02.2011 in U.MU.KA.No.E2/285/2011 has been challenged in this petition. Seeking to quash the same and for a consequential direction to the respondent, the petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition. 2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as NMR in the Office of the second respondent fro 01.10.1977 and completed 10 years of qualifying service on 31.12.1987 and thereafter his service was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 regularised by G.O.(MS) No.680 dated 16.08.1995 and right from 01.01.1988, he was in the post of Works Inspector Grade II. He is under the control of the second respondent. He claims that he is discharged his duties without any remarks. It is his case there are shortage of workers in the dam, which caused several problems in the rainy season and at that time more workers are in need in the filed area. At this juncture, the first respondent has passed an order of transfer transferring the petitioner from Vaigai dam to Periyar Main Canal Division at Melur in the middle of the academic year, affecting his daughter's studies, who is studying in 10th standard at Sri Valli Varatharaj Matriculation School, Sugar Factory at Vaigai Dam and she is going to write her S.S.L.C. Examinations which is to be conducted in the month of March 2011. 3. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order of transfer has been made in the middle of the academic year, which would seriously affect his daughter's studies. Therefore, the impugned transfers orders are contrary to the guidelines issued by the government in G.o.Ms.No.10 and the same is liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader, on instruction, submits that the petitioner is continuously in the same station for more than 23 years and therefore, he cannot claim continuance in the same place as a matter of right. 5. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order of transfer and other material documents annexed in the typed set of papers. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner is working as Works Inspector Grade II, in Vaigai Dam Sub Division at Theni District from 01.10.1977 and is a regular employee from 01.01.1988 and he is continuously working in the same place for more than 23 years. It is pertinent to note that though there are juniors and seniors in the same department, without considering them, the respondents have passed the order of transfer in respect of the petitioner, transferring him from Vaigai Dam to Melur, which is more than 120 kilometers. It is seen from the pleadings as well as the submission of the petitioner that his daughter is studying 10th standard and she is going to write his SSLC examination, which is to be commenced from March 2011. 7. No doubt, the order of transfer has been effected in the middle of the academic year. However, the transfer has been effected on an administrative grounds. The petitioner expressed difficulty as the transferred place is 120 kilometers away from the present station and if the transfer is given effect, his daughter's education will be affected. 8. It is the cardinal principle that the Court should not interfere with the transfer order is made in public interest and for administrative reasons and unless the transfer orders are made in violation of , statutory rule or on the ground of malafide. A Government servant holding a transferable post have no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other and transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be a complete chaos in the administration which would not be possible to public interest. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of School Education, Madras and others vs. O.Karuppa Thevan and another reported in 1994 Supp (2) SCC 666, held that as and when the matters have come before this Court, normally, this Court hesitant to interfere in the matters of transfer on administrative ground. It is also the settled principle, no law requires an employee to be heard before his transfer when authorities make the transfer for the exigencies of administration. However, when the petitioner's children are studying in school, the transfer should not have been effected during the mid-academic term. Although there is no such rule, in view of the fact that in effecting transfer,the children of an employee studying should be given due weightage, if the exigencies of the service are not urgent. 10. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would make a consistent plea that atleast till the academic session, the petitioner may be permitted to continue in the present station, in view of his daughter's studies. The petitioner has also filed an undertaking to that effect. In the affidavit of undertaking, the petitioner states as follows: “3.I humbly submit that my younger daughter namely, C.R.Pandikarthika is studying 10th standard at Sri Valli Varatharaj Matriculation School, Sugar Factory at Vaigai Dam. She is going to attend 10th public exam which is scheduled to be held in the month of April 2011. In view of the transfer my children study is affected and my family structure is also collapsed. Hence I am suffering more. Therefore, I filed the present Writ Petition and raised all my contention and same may be treated as part and parcel of this affidavit. 4.I humbly submit that after hearing the case on 21.02.2011 this Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass an order of “status quo” till 28.02.2011 against the transfer order of the first respondent and directed me to file undertaking affidavit. Therefore, I file this affidavit as per the direction of this Hon'ble Court and I prayed before this Hon'ble Court may be permitted me to continue the same place till 30.04.2011 and then I will obey the orders of this Court. In the above said circumstances, I prayed before this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to accept my affidavit and to permit me to continue the same place i.e. Vaigai Dam Sub Division, Vaigai Dam till 30.04.2011.” 11. In view of the above stated position and taking into account the affidavit of undertaking filed by the petitioner and also considering the circumstances the transfer has been effected in the middle of the academic year, however on administrative grounds, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in the present place namely, Vaigai Dam Sub https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 Division, Theni District, till 30.04.2011 and thereafter, the respondents are directed to effect the order of transfer. However, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation after joining in the transferred station expressing his grievance and difficulties and it is open to the respondent to consider the same in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar /True copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Superintending Engineer Periyar-Vaigai Basin Circle, Water Resources organisation, Public Works Department No.46 North Chithirai Street, Madurai - 01 2.The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Organisation, Public Works Department Periyar-Vaigai Basin division, Thallakulam Madurai-02 +1cc to Mr.V.Thirumal, Advocate SR.10528 RR SR : 03.03.2011 : 4p/4c : IT W.P.(MD)No.1934 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 01.03.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/