Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 40423
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J
I.Joseph Raj – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
W.M.P(MD)Nos.8696 & 8699 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.J.Lawrance
For the Respondents: Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar – for R1 to R3, Additional Government Pleader
A petition wrongly framing an independent transfer order as consequential to an earlier decision lacks merit and may be dismissed.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash an order dated 23.01.2026 by the 3rd respondent and an order dated 16.03.2026 by the 4th respondent related to a teacher's redeployment, claiming it was consequential to the prior order. The Court examined the relationship between both orders and determined that the order dated 16.03.2026 was an independent transfer and not consequential to the prior order as claimed by the petitioner. The issues before the Court were whether the petitioner was aggrieved by the 23.01.2026 order, and if the later order constituted a consequential order tied to the earlier one, thereby justifying the writ. The Court held that the 16.03.2026 order was a simple transfer to a newly vacant post and not a consequential order, therefore dismissing the claim of it being a consequential action. As a result, the writ petition is dismissed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition filed seeking cer (Para 2) |
| 2. orders found independent and not consequential (Para 3 , 4) |
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the 3rd respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 3510/A2/2025, dated 23.01.2026 and the proceedings dated 16.03.2026 issued by the 4th respondent.
2. Insofar as the challenge to the proceedings dated
23.01.2026 is concerned, the petitioner cannot be said to be neither aggrieved nor affected party, coming to the proceedings dated 16.03.2026, whereby, the petitioner was transferred from 5th respondent School to 6th respondent school under the management of the 4th respondent, the same cannot be said to be consequent to the proceedings dated 16.03.2026. But the petitioner has filed the present writ petition treating the order of redeployment, as a consequential to the proceedings dated 23.01.2026.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also strenuously contended that the proceeding dated 16.032026 is an order issued consequent upon the proceedings dated 23.01.2026.
4. The perusal of the proceedings dated 23.01.2026 and the proceedings dated 16.03.2026 does not in any manner suggest that the proceedings dated 16.03.2026 is an order issued consequent upon the issuance of proceedings dated 23.01.2026. Further, a careful perusal of the proceedings dated 16.03.2026 would disclose that the same is a simple order of transfer, transferring the petitioner from 5th respondent school to a vacant post available in 6th respondent school. The said vacancy in the 6th respondent school is also shown to have been arisen consequent upon retirement of the existing incumbent with effect from
28.02.2026.
5. From the above, it is evident that the proceedings dated
16.03.2026 is an independent proceeding issued by the 4th respondent transferring the petitioner from the 5th respondent school to the 6th respondent school duly posting the petitioner in an existing vacancy that arose on 28.02.2026. Therefore, the proceedings dated 16.03.2026 as an order of redeployment, consequent upon the proceedings dated 23.01.2026 is an erroneous understanding of the said proceedings and in the considered view of this Court, such a contention is raised only with a view to mislead this Court and to have an undue advantage.
6. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
