Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 64083
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, G.ARUL MURUGAN, JJ
J.Dorathy Sheela – Appellant
Versus
The Joint Director of School Education (Personal) – Respondent
W.A(MD)No.2404 of 2025 | C.M.P(MD)No.13631 of 2025 | W.P(MD)No.19626 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Rajendran for M/s.Right Law Associates
For the Respondents: Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader
Administrative transfers cannot be contested as a matter of right by government employees.
Headnote:This appeal challenges the order dated 21.07.2025 regarding the administrative transfer of an employee in the education department, citing principles that transfers are a condition of service, and cannot be claimed as a right. The court upheld the transfer, finding no infirmity in the lower court's ruling. The core issue framed involved whether the appellant's claim had merit given the absence of rights to challenge administrative transfers. The court reiterated that transfers are administrative decisions aimed at public efficiency, dismissing the appeal with no costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging administrative transfers lacks merit. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. response to claims regarding transfers. (Para 3) |
| 3. principles governing administrative transfers outlined. (Para 4) |
| 4. no infirmity found in previous court rulings. (Para 5) |
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
The writ appeal has been instituted challenging the writ order dated
21.07.2025 passed in W.P(MD)No.19626 of 2025. Peculiarly, the appellant has challenged the transfer order of the third respondent Mrs.Vasuki, whose transfer is unconnected with the request of the appellant seeking transfer from one school to another school.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant participated in the counselling but her case was not considered for transfer, however, the case of the third respondent Tmt.Vasuki was considered and she was transferred from Government Higher Secondary School, Palaviduthi, Karur District to Government Higher Second School, Porani, Karur District.
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 would submit that the third respondent has already joined in the said post and now she is working.
4. It is an administrative transfer. The governing legal principles for transferring a Government employee are that;
(i) Transfer is an incidental to service and conditions of service;
(ii) Post or place can never be claimed as a matter of choice by the Government servents;
(iii) Transfer being a condition of service. A public servant is expected to work in a place wherever posted in the interest of public administration;
(iv) However, request application if any received, the competent authority may consider by following consistency and transparency and by following the guidelines, if any, issued by the Government;
(v) Transferring a Government employee from one post to another post on administrative grounds is to improve the efficiency in the public administration which would not per se provide a cause for challenging the transfer order.
(vi) Transfer cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the Government employees.
5. In the present case, the appellant has challenged the transfer of the third respondent, which is unnecessary. The case of the appellant was not considered for administrative transfer and that being, the administrative decision had been taken by the authorities. This Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the Writ Court order impugned in the present appeal.
6. With these observations, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
