Disposed¶27

D.Selvans v. The General Manager

Service law – employee transfer – writ of mandamus under Article 226

Madras HC21 Jan 2026WP(MD)/1252/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Employee transfer challenge not entertained; sympathetic consideration of hardship plea directed. Keywords: transfer of driver; Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation; Kuzhithurai Depo; Ranithottam Depo Nagercoil; Marthandam Depo; Kanyakumari District; representation dated 24.11.2025; Article 226 mandamus; care of aged parents; liberty to approach concerned authority; writ petition closed, no costs. Bench: B. Pugalendhi, J.; decision date 21.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed without costs; petitioner given liberty to place records supporting his plea (care of aged parents) before the concerned authority, which shall take a call sympathetically. ¶27

D.Selvans Vs The General Manager — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition closed without costs; petitioner given liberty to place records supporting his plea (care of aged parents) before the concerned authority, which shall take a call sympathetically.

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the petitioner's transfer from Kuzhithurai to Ranithottam Depo ought to be entertained, and whether a Writ of Mandamus should issue directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.11.2025 for transfer to Kuzhithurai or Marthandam Depo.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Considering the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition.

¶20

Key takeaways

The petitioner was granted liberty to place all records in support of his plea that he has to take care of his aged parents before the concerned authority, and on production of such records the concerned authority shall take a call sympathetically.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law - employee transfer - writ of mandamus under Article 226 - WP(MD) No.1252 of 2026, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (B. Pugalendhi, J.), decided 21.01.2026. A driver of the Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, transferred from Kuzhithurai to Ranithottam Depo (Nagercoil) by order dated 24.11.2025, sought a mandamus directing the respondents to consider his representation dated 24.11.2025 for transfer to Kuzhithurai or Marthandam Depo, Kanyakumari District. Relying on the Standing Counsel's submissions that the petitioner had already joined duty at Ranithottam Depo, that the depot lies about 15 kms from Kuzhithurai Depo, and that the petitioner had worked at Kuzhithurai Depo from 2008 onwards, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition. It nonetheless left the petitioner at liberty to place all records supporting his plea that he has to care for his aged parents before the concerned authority, which shall take a call sympathetically on their production. Writ petition closed; no costs.

¶1

WP(MD). No.1252 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 21.01.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP(MD)No.1252 of 2026

¶7

D.Selvans ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Neamony Nagar, Ranithottam, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶10

The Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Tirunelveli No.23/2, Tuticorin Road, Kattapoman Nagar, V.M.Chatram, Tirunelveli 627 011. ... Respondents

¶11

Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.11.2025 and transfer the petitioner from Nagercoil Ranithottam Depo to Kuzhithurai or Marthandam Depo of Kanyakumari District.

¶12

1/4

¶13

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

¶14

WP(MD). No.1252 of 2026

¶15

For Petitioner : M/s.S.Titus For Respondents : Mr.K.Ramaiah, Standing Counsel

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner, who is working as a driver in the respondent Transport Corporation, has been transferred from Kuzhithurai to Ranithottam Depo, by the order impugned in this writ petition dated 24.11.2025. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶18

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has already joined duty at Ranithottam Depo and it is only 15 kms away from Kuzhithurai Depo. He further submits that the petitioner was working at Kuzhithurai Depo from 2008 onwards.

¶19

Considering the submissions made by the learned Standing

¶20

Counsel for the respondents, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

¶21

2/4

¶22

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

¶23

WP(MD). No.1252 of 2026

¶24

At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶25

claims that the petitioner has to take care of his aged parents.

¶26

The petitioner is at liberty to place all the records in support of his above plea before the concerned authority. On production of records, the concerned authority shall take a call sympathetically.

¶27