Dismissed¶36

P.Saravanan v. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.

Madras HC4 Jun 2025WP/19912/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer challenge dismissed; TASMAC Villupuram transfer order dated 07.05.2025 upheld as mere compliance with Madras HC direction in W.P.No.36466 of 2024 (16.04.2025); petitioner P.Saravanan free to pursue challenge via pending review petition; certiorarified mandamus refused; connected W.M.P. closed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

The third respondent merely complied with the directions of this Court in W.P.No.36466 of 2024 dated 16.04.2025 when issuing the transfer order dated 07.05.2025; accordingly, this Court finds no infirmity in that transfer order. ¶32

P.Saravanan Vs Tamil Nadu State Marketing… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.No.19912 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.06.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

W.P.No.19912 of 2025 and

¶7

W.M.P.No.22456 of 2025

P.Saravanan

... Petitioner

Vs.

Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Rep. By its Managing Director, Tower-II, 4^th Floor, Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶12

The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Trichy.

¶13

The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Villupuram.

¶14

S.Anandhan

¶15

K.Seenuvasan ... Respondents

¶16

1/5

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.19912 of 2025

¶19

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 27.09.2024 in Na.Ka.No.A1/552/412/2024 and the order dated 07.05.2025 in Na.Ka.No.C.V/A1/552/2025, quash the same consequently direct the first to third respondents to restore and repost the petitioner as main supervisor with full charge at shop No.11412 and to treat the period from 14.05.2025 to 29.05.2025 as duty pay and all other consequential benefits, award costs.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ajoy Khose

¶21

For Respondents : Ms.V.S.Saranya, Standing Counsel (for R1 to R3) *****

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the transfer order dated 07.05.2025 passed by third respondent.

¶24

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would

¶25

invite the attention of this Court to the fact that the impugned order has been passed in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.36466 of 2024 dated 16.04.2025.

¶26

2/5

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.19912 of 2025

¶29

As a reply to the above submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner had preferred a review petition, he is entitled to challenge the impugned order of transfer. It is a well-settled principle of law that the only ground to challenge the transfer is malafide.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶31

Standing Counsel for the first to third respondents and perused the materials available on record.

¶32

Here, on perusal of the impugned order, he simply complied with the directions of this Court passed in W.P.No.36466 of 2024 dated 16.04.2025. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the transfer order passed by the third respondent. However, this Court makes it clear that the petitioner has preferred a review petition against the impugned order. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the impugned order subject to the order passed in the review petition.

¶33

3/5

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.19912 of 2025

¶36