Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J
P. Rajan – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, The Department of Milk Production and Dairy Development – Respondent
| 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
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.
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.
Judicial review of administrative transfers under Article 226 is limited; transfers lack statutory force and can only be challenged on specific grounds such as mala fide or incompetence.
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 to cases of mala fides or statutory violations; transfers are normal incidents of service.
Administrative transfers cannot be challenged on grounds of malice in law; only malice in fact is relevant when considering the legality of such orders.
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 review of transfer orders is limited; transfers are inherent to service unless proven otherwise.
Transfers in public service must adhere to principles of natural justice and cannot be based on unverified complaints or external pressures.
Transfer orders are valid under administrative exigency unless proven malicious or in violation of statutory provisions.
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
