1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.8920 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 R.Murugesan : Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Tuticorin Collectorate, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin. 2.The District Revenue Officer, Tuticorin Collectorate, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin. 3.The Personal Assistant to District Supply Officer, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin. 4.Mr.Paramasivan, Sherishtadar, Tuticorin Collectorate, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin. 5.The Tahsildar, Srivaikuntam Taluk, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondents resulting in the first respondent's impugned order dated 29.06.2011 passed in Na.Ka.No.A5/5/2011, which is not served on the petitioner and consequential relieving order dated 02.08.2011 passed in A6-7548-2011 by the fifth respondent and quash the same and consequentially, direct the respondents 1 and 2 to pass an appropriate order to retain the petitioner at Srivaigundam where he was working as Revenue Assistant before passing the relieving order. For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Venkatesan For Respondents 1to3&5: Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen Additional Government Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 ORDER The impugned order of transfer dated 29.06.2011 passed by the District Collector, Tuticorin and the consequential order of the Tahsildar, Srivaikuntam, dated 02.08.2011, relieving the petitioner, are challenged in this Writ Petition on the grounds (i) that without serving the order of transfer dated 29.06.2011, the petitioner has been relieved; (ii) that the impugned order of transfer, transferring the petitioner from Srivaikuntam to Tuticorin Taluk, within a short period of eight months, is violative of G.O.No.10, which states that the persons, who have completed three years of service in a post or seat, are liable for transfer. Government Letter No.17232/per S/94/I, P&A.R. Department, dated 16.05.1994, is also pressed into service. It is further submitted that as per the Government Letter No.86456/per S/93-7, P&AR Department, dated 09.08.1994, transfer should not be effected on the basis of allegations. In addition to the above, mala fides have also been attributed against one Mr.R.Elango, who served as the Tahsildar in Thiruchendur Taluk. 2. Material on record shows that the impugned order of transfer dated 29.06.2011 has been issued by the District Collector to 15 persons and that it is a chain transfer. Perusal of the said order shows that it has been made purely on administrative grounds. Though the allegations of mala fide have been levelled, there was absolutely no proof. The District Collector, Tuticorin, cannot be said to have actuated by malice, while effecting the order of transfer and as stated supra, it is a chain transfer made, on administrative grounds. Though the petitioner has made certain allegations against one Mr.R.Elango, working as Tahsildar in Thiruchendur Taluk, that has no relevance to the impugned order. He has not been arrayed as a party. 3. It is well settled that an order of transfer made on administrative grounds cannot be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Useful reference can be made to the following decisions: In Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in AIR 1991 SC 532, this Court has held as follows: "In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order 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 complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 transfer orders." In N.K. Singh v. Union of India and Ors. reported in (1994) 6 SCC 1998, this Court reiterated that the scope of judicial review in matters of transfer of a Government Servant to an equivalent post without adverse consequence on the service or career prospects is very limited being confined only to the grounds of mala fide or violation of any specific provision. In Havaldar Charan Singh v. Union of India, reported in 2000 (6) SLR 715, it is held that the transfer of a member of the disciplined force on administrative grounds cannot be interfered with by the Court. In J.K.Bansal v. Union of India, reported in AIR 2005 SCW 4079, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the question of transfer and in paragraph 12 held as follows: "12. It will be noticed that these decisions have been rendered in the case of civilian employees or those who are working in Public Sector Undertakings. The scope of interference by courts in regard to members of armed forces is far more limited and narrow. It is for the higher authorities to decide when and where a member of the armed forces should be posted. The Courts should be extremely slow in interfering with an order of transfer of such category of persons and unless an exceptionally strong case is made out, no interference should be made." In State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, reported in (2004) III LLJ 749 (SC), the Supreme Court has set aside the order of the High Court, which interfered with the order of transfer and in paragraphs 7 and 8 held as follows: "7. It is too late in the day for any government servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision. 8. A challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the courts or tribunals as though they are Appellate Authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. This is for the reason that courts or tribunals cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent authorities of the State and even allegations of mala fides when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the court or are based on concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made with an order of transfer." In State of U.P. v. Siya Ram reported in 2004(7) SCC 405, the Supreme Court, in paragraph Nos.5 and 6, has held as follows: "5. The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India had gone into the question as to whether the transfer was in the interest of public service. That would essentially require factual adjudication and invariably depend upon peculiar facts and circumstances of the case concerned. No government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. This position was highlighted by this Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd., v. Shri Bhagwan. 6. The above position was recently highlighted in Union of India v. Janardhan Debanath. It has to be noted that the High Court proceeded on the basis as if the transfer was connected with the departmental proceedings. There was not an iota of material to arrive at the conclusion. No mala fides could be attributed as the order was purely on administrative https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 grounds and in public interest." 4. Apart from the above, it could be seen from the typed-set of papers filed along with the Writ Petition, at page Nos.24 to 28 that the petitioner has enclosed a copy of the para war remarks submitted by the Tahsildar, Thiruchendur, to the District Collector, Tuticorin. It is not known as to how the petitioner was able to get a copy of the internal communication and that too, para war remarks pertaining to a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.10853 of 2010 filed by one Mr.E.Ebenezer. It is certainly a matter to be looked into by the Collector. The impugned order of transfer cannot be said to be untenable, in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court cited supra, and that the petitioner has not satisfied anyone of the following grounds, viz., (i) the order of transfer is tainted with mala fide; (ii) it is in violation of any statutory rules; (iii) the authority, who has passed the order of transfer, has no jurisdiction to do so. 5. The impugned order of transfer does not fall within anyone of the grounds stated above and, therefore, there is no manifest illegality warranting interference by this Court. Hence, I find no merit in the Writ Petition and the same stands dismissed accordingly. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (W) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Tuticorin Collectorate, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin. 2.The District Revenue Officer, Tuticorin Collectorate, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin. 3.The Personal Assistant to District Supply Officer, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin. 4.The Tahsildar, Srivaikuntam Taluk, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin. +1cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.261996 SML GH : 10.08.2011 : 5p/6c Order made in W.P.(MD).No.8920 of 2011 Dated:- 09.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/