Writ petition challenging transfer of a Revenue Inspector was dismissed. The court accepted administrative reasons as valid and found no infirmity or illegality in the impugned transfer order, despite petitioner's claim of malafide intent.
No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.
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.
W.P.No.4020 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.03.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.4020 of 2024 and
WMP.Nos.4340 & 4349 of 2024
S.Shobana ... Petitioner
Vs.
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution
of India p raying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for
1/6
W.P.No.4020 of 2024
the records of the third respondent's proceeding vide Na.Ka.No.A2/542865/ 2023 dated 25.01.2024, quash the same with regarding the seventh respondent's posting as a Revenue Inspector at Thachampattu Firka, Thiruvannamalai District and order of transfer the petitioner from Thachampattu Firka, Thiruvannamalai Taluk to Eraiyur Firka, Chengum Taluk and consequently direct the third respondent to allow the petitioner to work at Thachampattu Firka, Thiruvannamalai Taluk as a Revenue Inspector with all attendant benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Govindasamy
For Respondents
For R1 to 6 : Mrs.R.L.Karthika, Government Advocate
For R7 : Mr.Melwin Jabaz for Mr.K.N.Pandian
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of
transfer passed by the third respondent dated 25.01.2024 thereby transferred the petitioner from Thachampattu Firka, Tiruvannamalai District to Eraiyur Firka, Chengam Taluk.
2/6
W.P.No.4020 of 2024
petitioner was promoted and posted as Revenue Inspector by an order dated 26.10.2023 at Thachampattu Firka, Tiruvannamalai. Immediately, she had joined in the said post within a period of three months. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to Eraiyur Firka, Chengam Taluk on 25.01.2024. He further submitted that the said transfer was vindictive one and with malafide reason. In order to accommodate the seventh respondent, the petitioner has been disturbed and posted the seventh respondent in the petitioner's place. That apart, he also relied upon the guidelines to be followed while effecting transfers of Government servants in Group A, B and C. Accordingly, during the non transfer period i.e. period between 1 st June and 31 st March, transfers necessitated on account of promotion including recruitment by transfer may be ordered i.e. direct to the lace where vacancy already exists.
revealed that due to administrative reasons, the petitioner has been
3/6
W.P.No.4020 of 2024
transferred from Thachampattu Firka, Tiruvannamalai Taluk to Eraiyur Firka, Chengam Taluk. As per Rule 40(a) Part II-General Rules of Tamilnadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, a member of a service or class or service may be required to serve in any post borne on the cadre of such service or class for which she is qualified and as per the Rule 40(b) Part II-General Rules of Tamilnadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, all transfers and postings shall be made by the appointing authority.
4/6
W.P.No.4020 of 2024
Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. As such, this writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
15.03.2024
Neutral Citation:Yes/No Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order lok
W.P.No.4020 of 2024
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok
To
W.P.No.4020 of 2024
15.03.2024
6/6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the transfer of the petitioner as a Revenue Inspector was illegal, vindictive, or based on malafide motives to accommodate another officer?
Whether the transfer order passed by the District Revenue Officer is liable to be quashed under Article 226?
Whether administrative grounds justify the transfer of the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
S.Shobana
A.Valli
Additional Chief Secretary, Commissioner of Revenue Administration
District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District
District Revenue Officer, Tiruvannamalai District
Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
