No legal right is available to petitioner to challenge order of transfer.

By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

2. Petitioner seeks to quash the order of the first respondent dated 11. 2006 transferring the petitioner from T-9 Pattabiram Police Station to R-6 Kumaran Nagar (Crime) Police Station, within the Chennai City Police limits.

3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner was originally appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1989 and subsequently promoted as Inspector of Police and he was having total service of about 19 years. By the impugned order, petitioner was transferred from T-9 Pattabiram Police Station to R6 Kumaran Nagar (Crime) Police Station, Chennai, within three months. The said order is challenged on the ground that only to accommodate the second respondent, who was promoted as Inspector of Police from the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police, the order of transfer is made. It is also stated in the affidavit that the petitioner is transferred 5th time in the year 2006 to various police stations and the transfer is made during nontransferable period.

4. The first respondent filed counter affidavit wherein the allegations made by the petitioner that only to accommodate the second respondent petitioner was transferred, is denied and by order dated 11. 2006, 52 Inspectors of Police were re-shuffled within Chennai City Police and the petitioner is one among them. The transfers were effected in order to cope up with the annexation of erstwhile Chengalpet East District with the Chennai Metropolitan Police; to meet out the safety and security of the Public; and to revamp the growing necessity of the Chennai City Police. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that from 1994 as Sub-Inspector of Police and thereafter as Inspector of Police, petitioner is serving in and around the Chennai City for the past 13 years. Prior to posting at T-9 Pattabiram Police Station, he was serving in S-8 Adambakkam Police Station from 9. 2004 to 8. 2006 and prior to that he was serving in T-3 Korattur Police Station, H-5 New Washerman (Crime) Police Station, and when he was posted at Adyar (Crime) Police Station on 8. 2006, petitioner requested to post him at T-9 Pattabiram Police Station and therefore the said transfer order was cancelled on 8. 2006 at his request. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner while working in T-9 Pattabiram Police Station, he failed to manage the station satisfactorily and failed to handle investigation of criminal cases satisfactorily and the details are stated in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit which reads as follows,

"...... It is submitted, that though T9 Pattabiram Police Station is relatively light station, he has failed to manage the station satisfactorily. There were complaints of bootlegging and gambling in the station limits. He did not handle the investigation of criminal cases satisfactorily. For example a case in Cr.No.1348/2006 u/s.174 Cr.PC was registered on 29. 2006, Five members of one family viz. 1.Joshua Jayaraman, his wife 2) Gowri, 3) Sivaprakasam, 4) Margret Manimegalai, W/o. Sivaprakasam, and their son, 5) Arputharaj, died of poison for domestic reason. Inspector who took up this case has not written CDs statements and the Inquest reports etc. The same were not sent to superior officer as well as to executive magistrate. Similarly he has registered a case in T9 P.S. Cr.No.1535/06 U/s.20(b) NDPS Act against 1) Paramasivam, A/49, S/o. Cheriyan, No.4/25 B, Kamarajar Street, Nemilichery, Pattabiram, on 11. 06. No CDs written, no progress made in this case also after remand. On 20.9.06 at 08.00 hrs he has registered a cases in T-9 P.S. C.No.1320/06 u/s.279, 304(A) IPC in which one Vasantha Kumar, A/19, S/o. Rajendran, No.7, Arumugam Street, Jothi Ramalingam Nagar, Chennai-33, died on road accident. In this case also Inspector has not even prepared inquest report statements and written CDs. His investigation in all the abov