ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR.J.,)

Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant in W.P(MD).No.2980 of 2022 dated 15.02.2022, the above writ appeal is filed.

2.The appellant was appointed as B.T Warden in the year 2007 and he was transferred to Government Tribal Welfare Residential High School, Melanai, Papanasam, Tirunelveli District. Thereafter, he was transferred to the post of B.T Assistant Mathematics in Government Adi Dravidar Welfare High School, Valasai, Kadayanallur Taluk, Tenkasi District. The appellant was working in the said place from the year 2013 onwards. While he was working as a teacher in Government Adi Dravidar Welfare High School, Valasai, based on the transfer policy of Government, on line counselling was arranged for general transfers. The appellant applied and participated in the counselling. All the teachers or wardens, who were working for more then 3 years in the same school, are eligible to participate in the counselling. The petitioner participated in the online counselling on 29.12.2022, but did not choose any place. However, again the petitioner participated in the counselling as per circular dated 21.01.2022 and opted the vacant place at Government Adi Dravidar Wlefare Higher Secondary School, Sundarajapuram, Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District. Accordingly, the second respondent passed an order of transfer by proceedings dated 22.01.2022 and the appellant was asked to join duty in the transferred place.

3.Though it is stated by the learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioner was not relieved from the Government Adi Dravidar Welfare High School, Valasai, the fact that the petitioner joined duty in the transferred school is not in issue.

4.After the appellant joined duty in the transferred place, the second respondent issued an order dated 01.02.2022 cancelling the earlier order of transfer dated 22.01.2022 stating that the appellant was not eligible to participate in the counselling, as the counselling between 19.01.2022 and 22.01.2022 is meant for transfer of wardens as teachers and vice versa.

Challenging the cancellation of previous order of transfer, the writ petition was filed by the appellant.

5.The learned Single Judge, dismissed the writ petition mainly on the ground that the appellant/writ petitioner's participation in the counselling was found to be erroneous and therefore, the transfer, which was passed contrary to the transfer policy is not valid and the impugned order, recalling the earlier order of transfer is justified.

6.The learned Single Judge further held that the counselling facility/concession are provided by the Government for smooth functioning of the administration and to minimize the hardship that may be caused to the persons in service. Further, the learned Single Judge observed that every Government servant is duty bound to work in the place he/she is posted. The learned Single Judge interpreted Section 48 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service Act) 2016 and held that the Government servant is bound to work wherever he/she is posted. Further it was held that the order of transfer can be challenged in a writ proceedings only on the ground of want of jurisdiction or mala fide, and the writ petition was dismissed.

7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order of cancellation of transfer dated 01.02.2022 impugned in the writ petition is highly arbitrary, unlawful and against the Transfer Guidelines and policy of the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.162, dated 16.11.2021 r/w. Rule 2(c)(i)(a) and (b) of the Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Welfare Subordinate Service Rules. The learned for the appellant further submitted that the appellant participated in the counselling that was held on 29.12.2021, and in the subsequent counselling on the basis of circular dated 12.01.2022, and hence the petitioner's participation is not prohibited by any specific