Administrative transfers are valid under relevant rules, do not require prior notice or hearing, and employees have no vested right to remain in a specific post.

ORDER :

(VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.)

This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned transfer order issued by the first respondent / the Commissioner, in Na.Ka.No.11819 / NB3 / 2025 dated 26.06.2025 and the consequential relieving order issued by the second respondent / the General Manager, in Rc.No.2435 / A1 / 2019 dated 27.06.2025.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the senior-most Senior Factory Assistant in the second respondent Union. The transfer of the petitioner, terming her as a "surplus employee," is arbitrary and unjustified. The principle of seniority mandates that only the junior-most employee can be transferred under the surplus category. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be transferred on the ground of surplus, as she holds the most senior position.

3. The learned counsel further submits that the impugned transfer order and the consequential relieving order are ultra vires and beyond jurisdiction. Both orders were issued without obtaining prior statutory sanction from the Administrative Committees of the second and third respondents, as required by the governing rules. The failure to obtain such prior approval renders the orders invalid. Further, the impugned orders were passed without giving the petitioner any notice or opportunity to be heard. This is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not provided with an opportunity to contest the transfer or to present her case before the orders were made.

4. The learned counsel also submits that the reason stated for transferring the petitioner that there are six surplus Senior Factory Assistants at the second respondent Union, is factually incorrect and misleading. One K.Anandha Raj, who was transferred from the Thoothukudi District Milk Producers Union, has been posted in the petitioner's place at the second respondent Union, undermining the claim of a surplus. The transfer order and relieving order are unconstitutional, illegal and in violation of the established norms. They are not only without jurisdiction but also fail to adhere to the principles of fairness, justice and due process required in administrative matters.

5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 submits that the petitioner R.Mohana Priya, has been continuously working as a Senior Factory Assistant in the second respondent Union, i.e., the Kanyakumari District Co-operative Milk Producers Union, since 30.01.2019. As per the present staffing position, there are six surplus Senior Factory Assistants working in the said Union. In order to rationalize manpower and ensure optimal utilization of human resources, the petitioner has been transferred on deputation basis purely for administrative reasons, in compliance with the rules in force.

6. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that the impugned transfer order has been issued under Rule 149(2A) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules , 1988, which permits such transfers on administrative grounds. The rule empowers the competent authority to transfer an employee on deputation for a specified period, when such a move is warranted by administrative exigencies, including surplus staffing. The petitioner has been posted to a vacant sanctioned post of Senior Factory Assistant at the third respondent Union, namely, the Pudukottai District Co-operative Milk Producers Union, for a period of one year. This placement does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner, as it is neither a punitive transfer nor a demotion, but a routine administrative adjustment. The transfer is not punitive in nature and does not affect the service conditi