Dismissed¶44

P.Mariyappan v. the Director of Horticulture and

Service Law – Transfer

Madras HC22 Aug 2025WP/25023/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, W.P.No.25023 of 2025, decided 22.08.2025 by P.T. Asha, J.: P. Mariyappan v. The Director of Horticulture and Plantation Crops and others - challenge to transfer of Assistant Horticulture Officer from Kanai Block, Villupuram District to State Agriculture Farm, Valliyoor Block, Tirunelveli; transfer held to be an incident of service; allegation of transfer engineered to accommodate 3rd respondent rejected; no malafide established; administrative exigency upheld; writ petition dismissed, no costs; W.M.P.Nos.28197 and 8200 of 2025 closed.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner, having been appointed to serve the Horticulture Department of the State, holds a post in which transfer is one of the incidents of his employment; he cannot stake a claim to be retained in Villupuram District. ¶35

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

¶1

W.P.No.25023 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.25023 of 2025

¶7

and W.M.P.Nos.28197 and 8200 of 2025

P.Mariyappan

... Petitioner

Vs.

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

¶12

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

¶13

Velmurugan

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

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.

¶16

1/8

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.25023 of 2025

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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 Kanai block on 13.07.2022 in which post he continues till the passing of the impugned order.

¶24

2/8

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.No.25023 of 2025

¶27

While so, by order dated 01.07.2025 the petitioner was transferred to the State Agriculture Farm at Valliyoor Block, Tirunelveli. 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.

¶28

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, Kanai Block. Till the passing of the impugned order, the petitioner had been posted at various blocks within Villupuram District and had finally been appointed at Kanai Block. From the date of his appointment, i.e from 28.02.2011, the petitioner has been working in

¶29

3/8

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.25023 of 2025

¶32

the very same district, i.e for 15 years without any transfer outside the district. At this juncture, the 3^rd respondent had requested a transfer to Villupuram District. Taking into account the experience of the petitioner, he was transferred to the State Horticulture Farm at Valliyoor Block, Tirunelveli 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.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

stake a claim for being retained in Villupuram District. The petitioner has been appointed to serve the Horticulture Department of the State and transfer is one of the incidents of his employment. From a

¶36

4/8

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.25023 of 2025

¶39

perusal of the chart which has been submitted by the respondents, it is seen that the petitioner has been posted only within Villupuram District from 28.02.2011 till today. He served at Vikravandi from 28.02.2011 to 04.08.2013, at Mugaiyur between 05.08.2013 and 31.07.2016, at Kaanai between 01.08.2016 and 20.08.2016 and at Thiruvennainallur between 20.08.2018 and 11.07.2022 and at Kaanai from 13.07.2022 to till the date of the impugned order. The above details would clearly indicate that the petitioner had been posted at Kanai Block for over 3 years. The 3^rd respondent had requested a transfer to any place in Villupuram and taking note of the fact that the petitioner was qualified to take charge of the Horticulture Farm at Valliyoor block, Tirunelveli he has been transferred. Except for stating that the transfer was a method to bring in the 3^rd respondent to Kanai block, 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 in the transfer or that he has been put to any kind of inconvenience.

¶40

5/8

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.No.25023 of 2025

¶43

Therefore, considering the fact that the transfer has been

¶44

made for administrative exigencies, this Court does not deem it fit to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶45

22.08.2025

¶46

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

¶47

¶48