Frequent transfers of an employee without sufficient reasons and causing hardship to the employee and their family can be considered mala fide and may be quashed by the court.

1. The prayer of the petitioner is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus after calling for the concerned records from the first respondent relating to the order of transfer bearing Ref. No.2527/Adm.2/A1/ F.FM.GR.I/95 dated 30.6.1995 issued by the first respondent, quash the same and issue a consequential mandamus directing the first respondent to report the petitioner at Veppur.

2. The petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition states that he joined the first respondent Board in the year 1965 as a Luscar and by dint of hard work, he was promoted as Line Inspector during the year 1992-93 and on 19. 1993 he was transferred from Tholudur to Avinangudi. The joined duty at Avinangudi as a Line Inspector on 19. 1993. While he was in Avinangudi he was promoted as a Grade I Foreman and on 4. 1995 he was transferred to Veppur and joined duty at Veppur. Further he states that he gave a representation on 4. 1995 to the first respondent requesting him to cancel the transfer order and retain him at Avinangudi itself. No reply was received from the first respondent. The first respondent again transferred the petitioner from Veppur to Cuddalore by an order dated 30.6.1995 which is the impugned order. It is further stated that the petitioner was transferred four times during the last previous years. It is further stated that his wife is an handicapped person and she cannot look after his aged mother who is 70 years old and his younger son who is mentally retarded right from his birth. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 wherein it is stated as follows:-

“I submit that the petitioner was transferred for four times in the last two years is denied. He was transferred from Tholudur to Avinangudi only on his specific request. He was working at Avinangudi from 19. 1993 to 4. 1995. Subsequently he was transferred to the Office of the Junior Engineer/Rural/South/Veppur during April, 1995 by the 2nd respondent (ie) the Executive Engineer /C & M/ Vridhachalam for the Administrative convenience and the petitioner joined duty on 4. 1995 at Veppur accepting the transfer order issued. No representation regarding the transfer to Veppur Section has been preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner was transferred from Veppur to Cuddalore Special Maintenance Section on 30.6.1995 by the First respondent to fill up the existing vacancy where a Foreman was bare necessity. As the petitioner was relieved of his duty at Veppur on 7. 1995 F.N. Thiru Veerasami, the 3rd respondent herein had joined at Veppur in the place of the petitioner.”

4. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is an accepted principle in public service that transfer is an incident of service. However, this power of transfer has to be exercised in a just and fair manner and frequent transfers without sufficient reasons to justify such transfers cannot but be dealt to be mala fide. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel referred to the ruling of Supreme Court reported in B.Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1986 S.C. 1955. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 referred to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations and Leave Regulations Manual and Regulation 105 of the said Manual reads as follows:

“A member of a class of service may be required to serve in any post borne on the cadre of such class of service in any place of duty as the exigeneies of the administration require.”

and contended that transfer is incidental of service and just because there are personal inconvenience, the transfer cannot be held to be bad. Learned counsel further submitted that there are no mala fide alleged in the transfer. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 referred to the ruling of the Supreme Court reported in Rajendra Roy v. Union of India, AIR