The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 116 of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981, which governs the power of transfer from one Corporation to another Municipality and the necessity of obtaining consent from employees before transferring them to different Municipalities.

These Writ Petitions have been filed for issuance of Writ of Certoriari to quash the impugned order passed by the second respondent, dated 10.03.2017. The impugned order is an order, by which the petitioner in the two writ petitions, who were working as 'Junior Engineers' in Dindigul Municipal Corporation, were transferred and posted on deputation basis to Cuddalore Municipality and Karur Municipality respectively.

2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the above writ petitions, are as follows:-

2.1. The petitioner in W.P(MD)No.4261 of 2017 was transferred to the third respondent on 06.03.2014 from some other Municipality. The petitioner, while serving in the third respondent which was only then a Municipality, the third respondent became a Corporation and the provisions of Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981 was made applicable to Dindigul Municipal Corporation. After the Dindigul Municipality became Municipal Corporation, the employees were required to give their consent to continue them under the Corporation. After obtaining consent from the employees, the first respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.186, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MC-5) Department, dated 22.12.2015, absorbing 447 employees including the petitioner in the two writ petitions under the Municipal Corporation Service Rules. From then onwards, the petitioners' services are governed under the Tamil Nadu Municipal Corporation Services Rules, 1996 and Tamil Nadu Municipal Service Rules 1970 has no application. It is also admitted that as per Rule 38 of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Corporation Services Rules, 1996, for the purpose of appointment, promotion, reversion, transfer and discharge from service, each Municipal Corporation shall be treated as a separate unit. It is the case of the petitioner in both the writ petitions that in terms of Section 116 of Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981, the first respondent, namely, the Government alone has power to transfer the employee of a Corporation to another Corporation. Since the petitioner is the employee of Dindigul Municipal Corporation, it is contended by the petitioner that the second respondent is not competent to transfer from the third respondent Corporation to a municipality. Hence, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the impugned order is, without jurisdiction. The case of the petitioner in W.P(MD) No.4262 of 2017 is also similar.

2.2. The petitioner in W.P(MD) No.4262 of 2017 is also joined the service of Dindigul Municipality service in the year 2000 and he was promoted as Junior Engineer on 05.03.2015. He was also transferred to a municipality by the impugned order. The contention of the petitioner in both the writ petitions are similar and common. The order of transfer was challenged by the petitioners on the following grounds in the original affidavits and in the reply affidavits:

(a) The impugned order of transfer is without jurisdiction and contrary to Section 116 Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act which is applicable to the third respondent Corporation.

(b) The petitioners in both the Writ Petitions, who are the employees of Municipal Corporation and governed by Municipal Corporation Service Rules cannot be transferred to different municipality, since each Corporation is a separate unit and the petitioner who is likely to loose station seniority is really affected by the impugned order and hence, the impugned order is illegal.

(c) The petitioners in both the Writ Petitions were designated as Assistant Engineer by the third respondent. However, by the impugned order, the second respondent has transferred the petitioner to the post of Junior Engineer which is a lower cadre. Hence, the impugned order cannot be passed without issuing show cause notice to the petitioner.

(d) The impugned order also read as if it is a transfer by way of deputation. Since petitioner's transfer is by way of deputation, the same is also illegal as the peti