Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 4451
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
P. Rajan - Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner, The Department of Milk Production and Dairy Development and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. (MD) No. 18411 of 2025 and W.M.P. (MD) Nos. 14127 and 14128 of 2025
Decided On : 08-07-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. P. Muthuvel.
For the Respondents: Mr. S.R.A. Ramachandran, Additional Government Pleader, Mr. J. Devasenan, Standing Counsel.
Administrative transfers executed under statutory authority do not require prior notice, and employees do not have a vested right to remain in a particular post indefinitely.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 - Rule 149(2A) - Transfer of employee - Petitioner sought to quash transfer order, claiming it was arbitrary and violated seniority principles - Administrative necessity justified transfer, being non-punitive and within jurisdiction - Prior notice not required in administrative transfers. (Paras 3, 8, 9)
(B) Natural Justice - Principles of natural justice do not apply to routine administrative transfers; absence of notice does not invalidate transfer when conducted in accordance with statutory provisions. (Paras 6, 8)
(C) Jurisdiction - Court should refrain from interfering in administrative policy and internal assessments unless clear evidence of malice is presented. (Paras 8(i), 8(ii))
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a senior driver, was transferred categorically identified as a surplus employee, claimed the transfer violated established norms, as no such surplus existed; the transfer was stated to be for administrative necessity.
Findings of Court:
The transfer was found to be lawful, issued under relevant rules, was a routine adjustment to address staffing needs, and met the requirements of procedural compliance.
Issues: Whether the transfer order was arbitrary and required prior notice or opportunity to be heard.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that administrative transfers do not require prior notice or hearing and upheld the legitimate authority's discretion to transfer employees as per staffing requirements.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks to quash transfer order. (Para 1) |
| 2. transfer deemed unjustified and beyond jurisdiction. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. claim of surplus staff is misleading. (Para 4) |
| 4. transfer justified under administrative rules. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 5. court reasons for dismissal of writ petition. (Para 8) |
| 6. writ petition dismissed without costs. (Para 9) |
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.11739 / NB3 / 2025 dated 26.06.2025 and the consequential relieving order issued by the second respondent / the General Manager, in Rc.No.2792 / A1 / 2019 dated 27.06.2025.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the senior-most Driver in the second respondent Union. The transfer of the petitioner, terming him 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 he 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 his case before the orders were made.
4. The learned counsel also submits that the reason stated by the respondents for transferring the petitioner namely, that there is one surplus Light Vehicle Driver at the second respondent Union, is factually incorrect and misleading. The said Light Vehicle Driver, who was allegedly considered as surplus, has already retired from service and hence, there is no surplus in that category as claimed. Therefore, 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 P.Rajan, has been continuously working as a Light Vehicle Driver in the second respondent Union, i.e., the Kanyakumari District Co- operative Milk Producers Union, since 01.01.1996. As per the present staffing position, there is one surplus Light Vehicle Driver 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 Light Vehicle Driver at the third respondent Union, namely, the Madurai 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 conditions or pay
