JUDGMENT :

R. MAHADEVAN, J.

The first respondent(s) herein, who are working as Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors in the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, have challenged their respective transfer orders by filing WP Nos. 10411, 10753, 10757, 14200, 8650 and 10081 of 2020, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Judge, upon considering the common arguments made both on factual and legal aspects, has allowed the said writ petitions thereby setting aside the transfer orders as illegal and void, by a common order dated 25.03.2021. Aggrieved over the same, the appellants / Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, have preferred these appeals before this court.

2.At the first instance, it is to be pointed out that the learned Judge has allowed the writ petitions only on the basis of common legal grounds urged by the first respondent(s) and has not gone into the merits of the cases individually questioning the respective transfers. Paragraph 2 of the order impugned herein reads as follows:

“2. These writ petitioners belong to the faculty of the University working as Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors. Broadly, the challenges in the writ petitions premised on two legal grounds, apart from certain other individual grievances expressed in the respective writ petitions. However, without first delving into the individual grievances of assailment, in the fitness of things, this court felt that the principal contentions need to be dealt with, which are common to all the writ petitions and in the event of this court agreeing with the contentions of the writ petitioners, there may not be any necessity to appreciate the individual pleas. In that view of the matter, these writ petitions are dealt with commonly as under.”

Therefore, this court is required to examine the validity and correctness of the order of the learned Judge, to that extent alone.

3.Though the learned counsel appearing for both sides contested the appeals both legally and factually, this court restricted the same only to the legal points raised by them, as already stated in the earlier paragraph, the learned Judge has decided the issue legally and has not gone into the individual factual matrix projected by the parties. Now, let us see the arguments made by the learned counsel on either side in these writ appeals.

4.1. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants presented a brief background and took this court through important documents based on which the entire case relies. According to him, G.O. Ms. No. 249 Finance (Budget General-I) Department, Dated 21.05.2020 (hereinafter shortly referred to as “G.O.Ms.No.249 dated 21.05.2020”) in short, was notified as an economic measure to tackle the consequences of Covid – 19 and it sought to minimize the expenditure of the Government through various measures, one of which is to minimize general transfers. This provision was applicable to all Government Institutions, including the appellant University. Hence, the same cannot be treated as immunity to the first respondent(s) from transfers. Adding further, he submitted that the University after having set out the reasons, sought permission from the Government to transfer the first respondent(s) to various places. In response to the same, the Principal Secretary to Government accorded concurrence and stated that the transfers “may be made” with minimum possible expenditure. As a consequence of the same, the first respondent(s) were ordered to be transferred and therefore, no mala fides attributed to the same, as alleged by the first respondent(s).

4.2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant University also submitted that the Vice Chancellor of the University has powers to effect transfers and the transfer orders were issued, only after obtaining the approval from the Government and therefore, the same cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny. Without considering the same in a proper persp