Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
S. Balasubramanian - Petitioner
Versus
Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited (TNPDCL) & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(MD) No.1066 of 2025 and WMP(MD) No.693 and 694 of 2025
Decided On : 08-04-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ Petition challenging transfer orders - Petitioner transferred from Palani to Madurai Division, while fifth respondent promoted to Assistant Administrative Officer - Court finds transfer lawful, based on administrative convenience and spouse category considerations - Petitioner failed to establish mala fides or statutory violations. (Paras 3, 6, 7)
(B) Transfer of Service - Transfer is an incident of service and can only be challenged on grounds of statutory violation or mala fides - Court emphasizes that mere allegations without substantial proof are insufficient for judicial intervention. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Administrative Officer since 2017, was transferred to accommodate the fifth respondent, who was promoted from Administrative Supervisor. The petitioner argued the transfer was unlawful and arbitrary. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The transfer was justified based on the fifth respondent's spouse category request and the petitioner's long tenure at Palani. No evidence of mala fides was found. (Paras 6, 7)
Issues: Whether the transfer was arbitrary and intended to accommodate another employee, and whether it violated any statutory provisions. (Paras 4, 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the transfer was lawful, based on administrative convenience and the spouse category, and that the petitioner did not substantiate claims of mala fides or statutory violations. (Paras 6, 7)
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
ORDER :
This Writ Petition has been filed against the proceedings dated 17.12.2024 issued by the third respondent transferring the petitioner from Palani Division to Madurai Division as the Assistant Administrative Officer and the proceedings dated 17.12.2024 issued by the third respondent promoting the fifth respondent from the post of Administrative Supervisor to the post of the Assistant Administrative Officer and the proceedings dated 21.12.2024 issued by the fourth respondent directing to relieve the petitioner from the post of Assistant Administrative Officer, Palani with effect from 21.12.2024 f.n.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel for the fifth respondent and carefully perused the materials available on record.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was promoted as the Assistant Administrative Officer in the year 2017 and was working at Palani, Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle from 15.07.2019. The respondent No.3 has issued the transfer order dated 17.12.2024 transferring the petitioner to Madurai EDC and posted the fifth respondent in his place on promotion from the post of Administrative Supervisor. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court has time and again deprecated the practise of transferring an employee for the purpose accommodating some other person and the third respondent is continuing to follow the said illegality. The third respondent issued transfer order on administrative convenience intentionally to accommodate the fifth respondent in his place. The learned counsel contends that it is unlawful since the fifth respondent has completed more than nine years of service continuously in the same Palani Division office, Dindigul EDC. The learned counsel contends that the third respondent transferred the petitioner and created vacancy and posted the fifth respondent on promotion in the said vacancy. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders dated 17.12.2024 issued by the third respondent are highly arbitrary, illegal and against the settled principles of law and it is a colourable exercise of power. As such, it is liable to be set aside
4. On behalf of the respondents 1 to 4, a counter affidavit has been filed. Basing on the averments of the counter affidavit, the learned Standing Counsel would submit that this writ petition has to be dismissed as infructuous in view of the fact that the petitioner was relieved from the post of Assistant Administrative Officer on 21.12.2024 FN itself and joined in the transferred place on 30.12.2024 as per the impugned order. Similarly, the fifth respondent had also joined the promoted post at Palani on 21.12.2024 FN The learned Standing Counsel would also submit that the petitioner was working in Palani Division as the Assistant Administrative Officer from 15.07.2019, thereby served for about 5 ½ years as the Assistant Administrative Officer at Palani in the Class-II post. The learned Standing Counsel submits that the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order of transfer is issued to accommodate the fifth respondent on promotion is contrary to truth. He submits that the management in the normal course of posting officers would consider the various aspects, which includes the number of years of service in Officer cadre post in a particular station and smooth functioning etc and implementing the same by administrative transfer orders of existing officers at the time of issuing promotion and posting orders. The learned counsel further submits that the fifth respondent has also made a representation to consider her case under spouse category and accordingly, while issuing posting orders to the petitioner, the said request is considered. The learned Standing Counsel further contends that the transfer is incident of service and it could not be challenged except on two grounds viz. vi
Transfer orders in service can only be challenged on grounds of statutory violation or mala fides; mere allegations are insufficient for judicial intervention.
Judicial review of employee transfers is limited; transfers are administrative unless proven mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions.
Judicial review of transfer orders is limited; transfers made on administrative grounds are valid unless shown to be arbitrary or malicious.
Courts cannot interfere with transfer orders unless they are shown to be mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions.
Government servants have no vested right to remain posted at a particular place, and interference with transfer orders should be limited to cases of mala fides or violation of specific provisions.
The transfer of an employee is within the prerogative power of the employer, who can withdraw, alter or modify any previous order of transfer. The court will not interfere under Article 226 of the Co....
Transfers of employees in public service are generally not subject to judicial review unless proven to be arbitrary or in violation of statutory provisions.
Judicial interference in employee transfers is limited to cases of mala fides or statutory violations; otherwise, the employer's prerogative prevails.
Transfer policies overridden by public interest and administrative exigency; spouse posting not absolute right.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
