V.S.Sirpurkar, J.: Petitioner is a member of the Pondichery Judicial Service, having been selected and working as Civil Judge (Junior Scale - Grade II). Presently she is posted as Inspector of Process, Judicial Department of Pondichery.

2. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 7.9.2001 under G.O.Ms.No.24/2001-LD, Pondichery whereby the Lieutenant Governor, Pondichery has conveyed the sanction to her deputation as Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu. Petitioner challenges this order predominantly on the ground that her service conditions, which are governed by the rules in G.O.Ms. No.10/96-LD, dated 21.3.1996 do not provide for any such deputation without her consent and as such, she cannot be sent out to serve in the State of Tamil Nadu which would be essentially beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Union Territory of Pondichery much less without her consent.

3. In the petition, in paragraphs 3 to 6, an unnecessary history has been given of her tenure as a Civil Judge perhaps with an idea to justify her prayer for promotion of which we are told that another writ petition has been filed. We are not concerned with that petition. We are concerned only with the transfer aspect which is in challenge in this petition and indeed, the learned counsel restricted himself to the subject of transfer alone. As has been pointed out, the petitioner is now transferred in the same capacity of Kuzhithurai in Kanyakumari District in the State of Tamil Nadu which, according to the petitioner, is contrary to her service conditions. According to her, she had not given her consent for deputed out of Union Territory of Pondichery and the order of the High Court, ultimately resulting in sanction by the Lieutant Governor, Pondichery, is without any legal sanction.

4. As against this, it is pointed out by the learned senior counsel, Mr.D.Murugesan, appearing on behalf of the Union Territory of Pondichery and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the High Court, Madras that the High Court is perfectly justified in transferring the petitioner and that is has the authority to do so under the existing rules.

5. The second contention of the petitioner is that she is transferred on account of some complaints, which were stage-managed complaints, by some disgruntled elements of the Bar. In short, her complaint is that this transfer is a "punitive transfer" without giving her any opportunity to explain and without hearing.

6. As regards this, the contention of the respondents is that there is nothing on record to suggest that this is a "punitive transfer". On the other hand, it is reiterated that ordinarily itself the members of the Tamil Nadu State Judiciary can and are transferred to the Pondichery Judicial Service while the members of the Pondichery Judicial Service are transferred to the Tamil Nadu Judicial Service. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that there are any number of Judicial Officers who have been transferred like this and the said transfer orders have not been contested so far.

7. On this conflicting background, we have to consider the point at issue.

8. Mr.V.Prakash, the learned counsel took us to the Pondichery Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "P.J.S. Rules"), to which we have already made a reference, which have been brought into existence on 21.3.1996 by G.O.Ms.No.10/96-LD. He points out that these rules have been framed under Art.309 of the Constitution of India and can be applicable only to the members of the Pondichery Judicial Service. In this behalf, our attention was drawn to Rule 2(e) wherein the word "service" is defined as under:

"2. Definitions: In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires-

(e) "Service" means the Pondichery Judicial Service."

Learned counsel stretching his arrangement further pointed out that Rule 5 of P.J.S. Rules provides for the appointment to the service whi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document