Disposed

R.Geetha v. the Principal Secretary to Government

Madras HC21 Feb 2025WP/3347/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Sports Development Authority employee challenged a transfer order from Vellore to Tiruvallur that described her as Coach and required reporting to an equal-ranked officer. Following counsel's statements that her designation would not be used to her disadvantage and that she may report to the Regional Senior Manager, Chennai, the writ petition was disposed of with the transfer order maintained.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to report to Regional Senior Manager, Chennai; designation assurance given; transfer maintained; no costs.

R.Geetha Vs the Principal Secretary to Government — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.NO.3347 OF 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.02.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

W.P.NO.3347 OF 2024 AND WMP NOS.3606 AND 21360 OF 2024

¶7

R.Geetha D/o.R.Radhakrishnan No.10, Murugan Nagar, Nallampakkam Kandigai, Chengalpet District – 600 048. ... Petitioner

¶8

VS.

¶9

1.The Principal Secretary to Government Youth Welfare and Sports Development Dept., Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

¶10

2.The Member Secretary Sports Development Authority of Tamilnadu (SDAT) and Director (Ex Officio) Youth Welfare Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Chennai – 600 003. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 2^nd

¶12

1/6

¶13

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

¶14

W.P.NO.3347 OF 2024

¶15

same.

¶16

respondent in Proc.No.6863/HR1A/2023 dated 26.01.2024 and quash the same.

¶17

For Petitioner : Ms.V.Kaanchana For Respondent-1 : Ms.A.Bakkialakshmi Government Advocate For Respondent-2 : Ms.N.S.Tanvi

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorari

¶20

seeking records of the second respondent in Proc.No.6863/HR1A/2023 dated 26.01.2024 and to quash the same.

¶21

2.Heard Ms.V.Kaanchana, learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶22

Ms.A.Bakkialakshmi, learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and Ms.N.S.Tanvi, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent.

¶23

3.I must deeply appreciate the sanguine manner in which the

¶24

learned counsel for the petitioner Ms.V.Kaanchana, and Ms.N.S.Tanvi, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent, presented the matter before this Court. This Court also extends this appreciation to

¶25

2/6

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.NO.3347 OF 2024

¶28

Ms.A.Bakkialakshmi, learned Government Advocate for the first respondent.

¶29

4.The issue relates to an order of transfer of the petitioner from Vellore to Tiruvallur. In fact, the petitioner had sought to be transferred to any region near or surrounding Chennai, as her mother is unwell. The respondents decided to transfer her to Tiruvallur. The matter could have rested at that stage, but the petitioner raised a grievance.

¶30

5.According to the petitioner, she joined as a Coach under

¶31

the second respondent and thereafter, she was promoted to the position of District Sports and Youth Welfare Officer, as per the proceedings of the second respondent dated 06.02.2019. Unfortunately, the order of such promotion was later revisited and the petitioner was re-categorized as a Coach.

¶32

6.The petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.28653 of

¶33

2022, and an order of interim stay had been granted regarding the re-categorization. The petitioner was then promoted as Senior Coach (in

¶34

3/6

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.NO.3347 OF 2024

¶37

the rank of Manager) and posted as Manager in the Sports Hostel in Vellore District. She was quite satisfied with the post. However, when the transfer order came, she was once again termed as “Coach”, which aggravated the grievance. Additionally, she was directed to report to the District Sports Youth Officer in Tiruvallur, an officer of equal rank. Therefore, the petitioner, has sought to quash the said order has filed the Writ Petition.

¶38

7.I am very fortunate that Ms.N.S.Tanvi, learned Standing

¶39

Counsel for the second respondent, and, of course, Ms.A.Bakkialakshmi, learned Government Advocate for the first respondent, appreciated the stand of the petitioner herein. The issue was primarily with respect to the designation given in the transfer order and the officer to whom the petitioner was directed to report.

¶40

8.The learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent, Ms.N.S.Tanvi, had a discussion with the second respondent and stated that the nomenclature of Coach would not be used to the disadvantage of the petitioner at any future time. She also stated that as an alternative, the

¶41

4/6

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.NO.3347 OF 2024

¶44

petitioner could report to the Regional Senior Manager, Chennai, who exercises control over the Tiruvallur District. The order of transfer is however maintained.

¶45

9.The Writ Petition is disposed of, with the hope that the petitioner's grievances have now been addressed. She can now report to the Regional Senior Manager, Chennai and then report at Tiruvallur on or before 28.02.2025. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶46

21.02.2025

¶47

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No TK

¶48

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

W.P.NO.3347 OF 2024

¶50

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶51

¶52

¶53

1.The Principal Secretary to Government Youth Welfare and Sports Development Dept., Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

¶54

2.The Member Secretary Sports Development Authority of Tamilnadu (SDAT) and Director (Ex Officio) Youth Welfare Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Chennai – 600 003.

¶55

W.P.NO.3347 OF 2024

¶56

21.02.2025

¶57

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

R.Geetha v. the Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Geetha v. the Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.E.Janane Vs the Directorate of Medical Education and Research

P.Gomathi Vs State of Tamil Nadu

D.Praburaj, Vs the Director of School Education

G.Ragavan Vs the Director General of Police

M.a.Muthusethupathi and 3 Others Vs No Respondent

V.Gopi Vs M/S.State Express Transport Corporation