The Court held that redeployment is an administrative exercise devoid of privilege or benefit, thus no grievance arises for an employee not selected. Consequently, the writ petition seeking orders on redeployment was disposed of without any order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.09.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
W.P.No.5696 of 2021
V.Rajasekaran ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal District Judge, Salem District, Salem.2.The Chief Administrative Officer, Principal District Court, Salem District, Salem. ...RespondentsPrayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling
for the records relating to proceedings in A.No.10/A/2021 dated
25.01.2021 passed by the 1st respondent, quash the same to the
extent of deferring the petitioner's deployment as Bench Clerk
Grade III and consequently direct the respondents to redeploy
the petitioner as Bench Clerk Grade- III by placing his name at
Serial No.16 in the redeployment order of the 1st respondent
dated 25.01.2021.
ORDER
(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner's
name was not included among the employees who were redeployed
from one position to another in the exercise undertaken in
January of this year.
2. At the outset, it must be clarified that redeployment
does not amount to promotion. When an employee is redeployed
from one position to another, it is obvious that the two
positions carry the same emoluments and perquisites and are, for
all practical purposes, seen to be equivalent posts.
3. At the relevant time, the petitioner faced
disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, when the list of
personnel redeployed was published, it was expressly mentioned
that the petitioner had not been considered since the petitioner
faced disciplinary proceedings. However, while referring to the
petitioner, the expression used was that the petitioner had not
been considered for promotion. The error is compounded in the
affidavit filed by the Principal District Judge, Salem. In such
affidavit, the Principal District Judge has referred to Section
7(1) of Part-A (II) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants
(Condition of Service) Act. In this connection, the District
Judge has also referred to an alternative remedy being available
in such a situation. The District Judge does not appear to have
indicated the correct position, but no prejudice has been
occasioned to the petitioner as a result.
4. So as not to allow the personnel to stagnate in one
position and to rotate the employees from one section or
department to another, the exercise of redeployment is
undertaken by the employer. Redeployment may also happen upon
the employer finding a particular employee more suitable in a
different position than the position where such employee has
been placed. Since redeployment does not entail any privilege or
benefit, as to how and when and in what manner the exercise of
redeployment would be conducted, is not something that a
concerned employee may assert. It is possible that one employee
may not be redeployed whereas his colleagues in the same post
may all be redeployed.
5. The exercise of redeployment, if appreciated, will
provide the key to the matter. Redeployment is for the
administrative purpose and may or may not be as per the
exigencies. It may be a routine redeployment or it may be a
redeployment based on a particular need or for other purposes
that the employer may think it appropriate to bring about
greater efficiency in the functioning. It does not give or take
away any benefit or right and, as such, an employee who has been
redeployed or another who has not been considered for being
redeployed cannot raise any grievance since there is no material
benefit - and, consequently prejudice - suffered by the
concerned employee. In a sense, it is akin to a transfer from
one department to the other and the only benefit or advantage
may be that the department could be closer to the gate or
further away from the gate.
6. W.P.No.5696 of 2021 is disposed of without any order
since the redeployment denied to the petitioner has not resulted
in any prejudice in any matter or form to the petitioner. There
will be no order as to costs. WMP Nos.6314 and 6316 of 2021 are
closed.
7. In the event the disciplinary proceedings are
concluded, if the petitioner makes a request for redeployment to be post of Bench Clerk Grade III, it will be open to the employer to consider the same in the appropriate spirit.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-III)
// True Copy //
Sub Assistant Registrar
kpl/drm
To:
1.The Principal District Judge, Salem District, Salem.2.The Chief Administrative Officer, Principal District Court, Salem District, Salem.+1cc to Mr.Elango, Advocate SR.No.50387W.P.No.5696 of 2021
MG(CO)
RVM(06/10/2021)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether non-inclusion of a petitioner in a redeployment list amounts to a violation of Article 226 given the lack of prejudice.
Whether a grievance regarding administrative redeployment is maintainable when the exercise entails no privilege or benefit.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
V. Rajasekaran
The Principal District Judge, Salem District, Salem
The Chief Administrative Officer, Principal District Court, Salem District, Salem
Sanjib Banerjee
P.D. Audikeshavalu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court