1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 1/4/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN Writ Petition (MD)No.3915 of 2011 and MP(MD)No. 1 of 2011 C. Senthil ...Petitioner Vs 1. The District Collector District Collector's Office, Tirunelveli. 2. The Block Development Officer Radhapuram Panchayat Union Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District. ...Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records and quash the impugned order of the 1st Respondent vide proceedings No.Gnu.2/1809/2010 (1) dated 28/2/2011. For petitioner ... Mr.Ramesh @ Ramiah For respondents ... Mr.V.Rajasekaran, Spl.G.P O R D E R By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Rajasekaran, Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 28/2/2011 an order of transfer. 4. The grounds on which the impugned order of transfer was challenged are:- (i). It is violative of the instructions of the Government and is mala fide. (ii). The administrative reasons stated in the impugned order is neither correct nor there are any circumstances which exist for such exercise. (iii). No reason has been stated in the impugned order of transfer. (iv). The impugned order is totally violating the Government instruction issued vide letter dated 13/4/2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 (v). There is a ban on transfer of Government employees issued by the Election Commission in view of the ensuing election to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. (vi). The impugned order has not taken note of the fact that the petitioner's wife is employed in a near place where the petitioner was originally working and it will cause hardship to the petitioner. (vii). The petitioner has got a sickly mother and a young girl child and they will suffer, if the petitioner is transferred. 5. Though an order of transfer may cause some inconvenience to the employees, the same cannot be a ground to interfere with the order of transfer. The Government employee is bound to face such occupational hazard. That apart, though the petitioner has raised the ground of mala fide, the same has not been substantiated. Further, more, the Officer against whom an allegation of mala fide was made, was not made as a party respondent. 6. Time and again, the Honourable Apex Court has held that an order of transfer cannot be interfered with by this Court exercising writ jurisdiction. It is for the authorities to decide when an employee has to be transferred and where an employee has to be transferred. 7. In view of the above stated position, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of transfer passed by the first respondent dated 28/2/2011. 8. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to make a representation to the first respondent enlisting his grievance. As and when such representation is given, it is open to the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a reasonable time. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( P AND A ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR mvs. To 1. The District Collector, District Collector's Office,Tirunelveli. 2. The Block Development Officer, Radhapuram Panchayat Union Radhapuram,Tirunelveli District. 1CC TO MR. R. RAMESH @ RAMAIAH, Advocate, SR: 12390: 1CC TO THE SPL. GOVT PLEADER SR: 12555: DM:2011:APRIL:28: W.P.(MD)No.3915 of 2011 AND MP(MD)No. 1 of 2011 2p:5c:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/