Dismissed¶43

Kanniyappan v. the Director of Horticulture and

Madras HC22 Aug 2025WP/25019/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Employee transfer; transfer as incident of service; malafide transfer plea rejected; administrative exigency; judicial non-interference in transfers; Article 226 writ of certiorari; Assistant Horticulture Officer; Horticulture Department Tamil Nadu; Krishnagiri; Hosur; Anaikatti, Coimbatore; transfer at request of third party; writ petition dismissed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner, having been appointed to serve the Horticulture Department of the State, is subject to transfer as one of the incidents of his employment and cannot insist on being retained in Krishnagiri District. ¶37

Kanniyappan Vs the Director of Horticulture and — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned transfer order dated 01.07.2025 shifting the petitioner from Hosur to the State Agriculture Farm at Anaikatti, Coimbatore — allegedly engineered to accommodate the 3rd respondent — is vitiated by malafides and liable to be quashed, or whether the Court should decline to interfere with an administrative transfer.

¶26

Court's answer

¶37

Ratio / Principle

On the chart submitted by the respondents, the petitioner had been posted only within Krishnagiri District from 25.02.2011 onwards and had served at Hosur for over 3 years when the impugned transfer was effected.

¶38

Key takeaways

Although the fact that the petitioner was transferred at the request of the 3rd respondent has not been denied, the petitioner has not been able to make out any malafides in the transfer.ratio¶38
The petitioner has not been put to any kind of inconvenience by the transfer.ratio¶42
Since the transfer was made for administrative exigencies, the Court does not deem it fit to interfere with the impugned order.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (P.T. Asha, J.) dismisses a writ petition under Article 226 seeking certiorari to quash an order dated 01.07.2025 transferring the petitioner, an Assistant Horticulture Officer, from Hosur (Krishnagiri District) to the State Agriculture Farm at Anaikatti, Coimbatore. Held: transfer is an incident of employment; the petitioner had served only within Krishnagiri District from 25.02.2011 and at Hosur for over three years; although the transfer accommodated the 3rd respondent's request (a fact not denied), no malafides were made out and no inconvenience shown; a transfer made for administrative exigencies does not warrant interference. Writ petition dismissed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

W.P.No.25019 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 22.08.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

W.P.No.25019 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.28190 and 28193 of 2025

Kanniyappan

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Director of Horticulture and Plantation Crops, O/o. The Director of Horticulture and Plantation Crops Department, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶11

The Joint Director of Horticulture, O/o. The Joint Director of Horticulture, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri.

¶12

Rubesh Yadav

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent vide his proceedings in br/K/Miz vz;/fgep1/17502/2024 dated 01/07/2025 and quash the same as illegal insofar as the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent is concerned.

¶15

1/8

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.25019 of 2025

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Saravanan for M/s.Ajmal Associates For Respondents-1 and 2 : Mr.G.Nanmaran Special Government Pleader

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner seeks to quash the order passed by the 1^st

¶21

respondent in his proceedings in br/K/Miz vz;/fgep1/17502/2024 dated 01/07/2025.

¶22

2.The contention of the petitioner as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is briefly set out herein below. The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Agriculture Officer on 28.02.2011 and this post was re-designated as Assistant Horticulture Officer after the bifurcation of the department. The petitioner would submit that after serving at various blocks, he was ultimately posted as Assistant Horticulture Officer at Hosur on 01.08.2022 in which post he continues till the passing of the impugned order.

¶23

2/8

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.25019 of 2025

¶26

While so, by order dated 01.07.2025 the petitioner was transferred to the State Agriculture Farm at Anaikatti, Coimbatore. The transfer order states that it is for administrative reasons and based on consent. The petitioner is aggrieved by the transfer on the ground that the reason given in the order is absolutely false as the transfer itself has been engineered in order to accommodate the 3^rd respondent who had requested transfer to the petitioner's place. Therefore, the petitioner would seek to have the impugned order quashed.

¶27

The 2^nd respondent has filed filed a counter affidavit interalia denying the allegations made by the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner was officiating as an Assistant Horticulture Officer in the office of the Assistant Director of Horticulture, Hosur. Till the passing of the impugned order, the petitioner had been posted at various blocks within Krishnagiri District and had finally been appointed at Hosur. From the date of his appointment, i.e from

¶28

3/8

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.No.25019 of 2025

¶31

25.02.2011, the petitioner has been working in the very same district for 15 years without any transfer outside the district. At this juncture, the 3^rd respondent had requested a transfer to Krishnagiri. Taking into account the experience of the petitioner, he was transferred to the State Horticulture Farm at Anaikati Block, Coimbatore District through the impugned order dated 01.07.2025. The 2^nd respondent would submit that the transfer is an incident of service and it is well open to the employer to transfer an employee to a particular place due to administrative reasons. The petitioner cannot insist that he should be retained in the very same district in which he has been posted.

¶32

Heard the learned counsels on either sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶33

The petitioner, by filing the above writ petition, seeks to

¶34

stake a claim for being retained in Krishnagiri District. The petitioner

¶35

4/8

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.No.25019 of 2025

¶38

has been appointed to serve the Horticulture Department of the State and transfer is one of the incidents of his employment. From a perusal of the chart which has been submitted by the respondents, it is seen that the petitioner has been posted only within Krishnagiri District from 25.02.2011 till today. He served at Bargur from 25.02.2011 to 30.06.2016, at Mathur between 01.07.2016 and 06.06.2019, at Veppanahalli between 07.06.2019 to 31.07.2002 and at Hosur from 01.08.2022 till the date of the impugned order. The above details would clearly indicate that the petitioner had been posted at Hosur for over 3 years. The 3^rd respondent had requested a transfer to any place in Krishnagiri and taking note of the fact that the petitioner was qualified to take charge of the Horticulture Farm at Anaikati he has been transferred. Except for stating that the transfer was a method to bring in the 3^rd respondent to Hosur, there are no other serious grounds of challenge. The fact that the petitioner was transferred at the request of the 3^rd respondent has not been denied. However, the petitioner has not been able to make out any malafides

¶39

5/8

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.No.25019 of 2025

¶42

in the transfer or that he has been put to any kind of inconvenience.

¶43

Therefore, considering the fact that the transfer has been made for administrative exigencies, this Court does not deem it fit to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶44

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶45

22.08.2025

¶46

Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes / No srn

¶47

6/8

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.No.25019 of 2025