IMPORTANT POINT
The integrity of the officers functioning in the administration is of utmost importance to retain the confidence of the litigants in the fairness of the judicial system. If there is any complaint in this behalf, the Chief Justice is expected to act on behalf of the High Court to see to it that the stream of justice does not get polluted at any level.

Headnote:(a) Service Law ¯ Transfer ¯ First respondent working as Sheristadar category I in District Courts was transferred outside the district by the appellant on behalf of the High Court on administrative grounds ¯ The respondent was transferred on the report of the Registrar (Vigilance) ¯ District Judge had also opined that the retention of the respondent in his district was undesirable from the point of view of administration ¯ Complaint against the respondent was that he was dominating the administration of the District Judiciary, departmental inquiries were pending against him with regard to his integrity ¯ A Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of transfer holding that as per Article 216 of the Constitution, High Court means the Chief Justice and his companion Judges, as such matter of transfer of the first respondent should have been placed before the Full Court ¯ The Division Bench further held that in any case no committee was constituted by the High Court before taking the decision to transfer the respondent ¯ The order of transfer was a unilateral decision taken by the then Chief Justice of the High Court ¯ Appellant preferred this appeal ¯ Supreme Court set aside the Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court ¯ Held, transfer of the respondent was on complaint and a vigilance inquiry was pending against him ¯ By resolution of the Full Court of Madras High Court, the subject of vigilance enquiries was with the Chief Justice ¯ High Court also exercises control over the Subordinate Courts under Article 235 of the Constitution ¯ The transfer order of the respondent by the Chief Justice of the High Court was passed by a competent authority, was valid ¯ Transfer was not punitive also.
        (b) Transfer on administrative grounds ¯ Judicial Review ¯ Transfer is an incident of service and one cannot make a grievance if a transfer is made on the administrative grounds and stigma. (Para 22).
        (c) Promotion ¯ An employee has no right of promotion, he has only a right to be considered for promotion. (Para 25).

JUDGEMENT

H.L. Gokhale, J. —

Leave Granted.

2. This appeal by Special Leave seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 28.08.2008 passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court (at Madurai Bench) in W.P. (MD) No.7121/2007. The Division Bench has allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent who is working as a Sheristadar in the District Judicial Service in the State of Tamil Nadu.

3. The Division Bench by its impugned judgement and order has quashed and set-aside the transfer of the first respondent from District Thoothukudi to District Ramanathapuram, and directed the High Court to restore him in District Thoothukudi with his seniority, and confer on him the post of Personal Assistant (P.A.) to the District Judge, Thoothukudi.

Facts leadings to this appeal are as follows -

4. The first respondent joined the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service as a Typist on 11.4.1979, and was initially posted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate II Class at Kovilpatti in District Thoothukudi (formerly known as Tuticorin). Over the period he was promoted from time to time and from 15.10.2001 onwards he was working as Sheristadar Category I in Court of Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi. He was also holding the additional charge of the post of P.A. to the District Judge, Thoothukudi, since that post had fallen vacant. It is his case that he was expecting the regular promotion in the post of P.A. to the District Judge.

5. It so transpired that the first respondent alongwith other two employees in the District, that is one S. Kuttiapa Esakki, Sheristadar, Sub-Court, Kovilpatti and one T.C. Shankar, Head Clerk in the Court of Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi came to be transferred outside the district by order dated 19.9.2006 issued by the appellant on behalf of the High Court on administrative grounds. These other two employees filed writ petitions bearing nos. WP (MD) No.9378 and 10528 of 2006 before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, but the petitions came to be dismissed by the High Court by its order dated 20.4.2007. The first respondent did not challenge his transfer at that time and joined at the place where he was transferred in district Ramanathapuram.

6. The first respondent came to know that the post of P.A. to the District Judge, Thoothukudi was being filled, and on 21.4.2007 he made a representation to the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi, the respondent no.2 herein for being considered for that post. The first respondent learnt that the fourth respondent was promoted to that post of P.A. to the District Judge though he was due to retire shortly on 31.8.2007. He is junior to the first respondent as well as to the third respondent. Third respondent went on medical leave in July 2007 and that is how fourth respondent was promoted to that post. Later on, the first respondent learnt that he was not considered for this post for the reason that he was already transferred outside that district, and the reasons for the decision were recorded in the proceeding of the second respondent dated 6.6.2007.

7. At this stage the first respondent obtained necessary information by filing an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and then filed a writ petition on 24.8.2007 bearing W.P. (MD) No.7121/2007 before the Madurai Bench, and prayed that the proceeding dated 6.6.2007 bearing No.2697 concerning his non-consideration for that post be called from the file of the second respondent, and be quashed and set-aside. He also prayed that a selection panel be prepared for the post of P.A. to the District Judge, Thoothukudi by including his name in that panel, and necessary orders be passed. The Principal District Judge was joined as the first respondent, the High Court was joined as the respondent no.2, and the two concerned employees were joined as respondent no.3 and 4 in that petition.

8. The first respondent contended in his petition that in spite of his transfer from District Thoothukudi, he retai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 922

Cases Referred (16)