Dismissed

Sivasankaran .B v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC3 Nov 2023WP(MD)/26438/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking a mandatory order to appoint him to a specific post as Assistant Director of Prosecution. The Court held that transfer is incidental to service and the Judiciary cannot run public administration.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing appointment to the post of Assistant Director of Prosecution dismissed.

Sivasankaran .B Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.26438 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 03.11.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI

¶7

W.P.(MD)No.26438 of 2023

B.Sivasankaran

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Additional Secretary, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶12

2.The Director of Prosecution, Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Developmental Board, Annex Building 1^st Floor, No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai-5. ...Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Director of Prosecution, Pudukkottai as per G.O.Ms.No.603, dated 10.07.2003, based on the petitioner's representation dated 14.10.2023 within the time frame stipulated by this Court.

¶14

1/5

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.26438 of 2023

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Mathavan For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan, Special Government Pleader

¶18

ORDER

¶19

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. )

¶20

The lis on hand has been instituted to direct the respondents to appoint

¶21

the petitioner to the post of Assistant Director of Prosecution, Pudukkottai as per G.O.Ms.No.603, dated 10.07.2003, based on the petitioner's representation dated 14.10.2023.

¶22

2.The petitioner joined duty as Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II on 23.01.2013 and on promotion presently, working as Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-I at Theni. He has submitted a representation to transfer him to the post of Assistant Director of Prosecution, Pudukkottai based on the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.603, dated 10.07.2003.

¶23

3.The governing legal principles in the matter of transfer are that transfer is an incidental to service, more so, a condition of service. The High Court cannot entertain a Writ Petition either to direct the authorities to consider the

¶24

2/5

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P.(MD)No.26438 of 2023

¶27

representation to transfer a public servant or to transfer an employee and if such representations are considered by the High Court, the same would do no service to the cause of justice. Contrarily, the litigant will be back again. The Court cannot run public administration. It is for the authorities to transfer the employee for efficient public administration and to fulfil the needs of the administration for providing better services to the public at large. Thus, the Writ proceedings against an order of transfer itself is not entertainable, unless such transfer has been issued by the authorities having no jurisdiction or tainted with the allegations of mala fide.

¶28

4.In the present case, the petitioner has relied on the Government Order. All such Government Orders are the guidelines issued for the purpose of considering the applications and the High Court cannot direct the authorities to consider such representations, since such orders would affect the administration one way or other. It is for the competent authorities to take a decision to post the employees for efficient administration, which is mandated under the Indian Constitution.

¶29

3/5

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.26438 of 2023

¶32

5.Thus, the prayer as such sought for in the present Writ Petition

¶33

deserves no merit consideration. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed.

¶34

No costs.

¶35

(S.M.S., J.) & (R.K.M., J.) 03.11.2023

¶36

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶37

Yuva

¶38

¶39

1.The Additional Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶40

2.The Director of Prosecution, Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Developmental Board, Annex Building 1^st Floor, No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai-5.

¶41

4/5

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P.(MD)No.26438 of 2023

¶44

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND

¶45

R. KALAIMATHI, J.

¶46

Yuva

¶47

W.P.(MD)No.26438 of 2023

¶48

03.11.2023

¶49

5/5

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Sivasankaran .B v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivasankaran .B v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.S.Karikala Chozhan Vs the Chief Municipal

P.Sonaimuthu Vs the District Collector

Kajamaideen .M Vs The Manager / Authorized Officer