P.Alagarsamy v. The Deputy Director of Fisheries, (Regional) Madurai.2.The Assistant Director of Fisheries, (Inland
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 3737. In view of the above stated position, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of transfer. In fine, the Writ Petitionstands dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected MiscellaneousPetition is closed. Sd/-Deputy Registrar(Accounts)/TRUE COPY/Assistant RegistrarTo1.The Deputy Director of Fisheries, (Regional) Madurai. 2. The Assistant…
Judgment
1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 24/06/2011C O R A MTHE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMANWrit Petition (MD) No.6406 of 2011P.Alagarsamy ... PetitionerVs1.The Deputy Director of Fisheries, (Regional) Madurai.
The Assistant Director of Fisheries, (Inland Fisheries), Dindigul... RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the impugned order of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.3539/A1/2011 dated10.06.2011 and quash the same. For petitioner ...Mr.H.Arumugam For Respondents ...Mr.B.Pugalendhi Spl. Govt. PleaderORDERHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.2. By consent, the Writ petition is taken up for final hearing.
Challenging the impugned order of the first respondent dated 10.06.2011, an order of transfer, the present writ petition islaid.
Absolutely, no legal ground has been raised challenging the order of transfer. An order of transfer is an incidental service and the same cannot be interfered unless otherwise their exists three grounds, namely, (1) the order is tainted with malafide, (2) if it is passed by the authority, who has no jurisdiction to do so, and(3) if it is violative of any statutory of rules. Absolutely, none of the grounds have been raised in this WritPetition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Transfer is a service condition and it is for the authorities to decide where an employee has to be transferred and when to be transferred. It is not for this Court to dictate terms to the authorities. 6. This Court, in C.Somasundaram v. District Forest Officer, Coimbatore Division, Coimbatore-18 and another reported in (2007) 6MLJ 1819 has referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal reported in AIR 2004 SC 2165 and the same is usefully extracted hereunder: “18. It is also useful to refer to the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in State ofU.P. v. Gobardhan Lal AIR 2004 SC 2165: (2004) 11SCC 402:2004-III-LLJ-749 wherein it has been held as follows at p.752 of LLJ:“7. It is too late in the day for any government servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires.
Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is should to be an outcome of amala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or Rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as amatter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particularofficer/servant to any place in public interest andas is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments.
This Court made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticedsupra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision.” https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
In view of the above stated position, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of transfer. In fine, the Writ Petitionstands dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected MiscellaneousPetition is closed. Sd/-Deputy Registrar(Accounts)/TRUE COPY/Assistant RegistrarTo1.The Deputy Director of Fisheries, (Regional) Madurai. 2. The Assistant Director of Fisheries, (Inland Fisheries), DindigulW.P.(MD) No.6406 of 201124.06.2011RRPA/04.07.2011/3P/3C
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.