G.Raju vs The Tamil Nadu Agricultural University

The order of transfer issued to the writ petitioner in proceedings dated 30.03.2010 and the consequential reliving order dated 31.03.2010, are

under challenge in this writ petition.

The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner made submissions that the writ petitioner is holding the post of Laboratory Assistant and his

initial appointment was on companionate grounds on 13.03.2001. The service of the writ petitioner was regularised and he is working as a

permanent employee. However, on administrative grounds the writ petitioner was issued with an order of transfer in proceedings on 30.03.2010.

Accordingly, the writ petitioner was transferred from ICAR-Dryland Agricultural, Agricultural Research Station, Kovilpaptti to the ICAR-Cashew

and Spices, Regional Research Station, Virdhachalam.

Challenging the order of above transfer, the present writ petition is moved by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on the

ground that the impugned order was passed on Mala fide grounds and further it is stated that the order of transfer is punitive in character. The

learned counsel for the writ petitioner, further made an attempt to urge this Court that the post of Laboratory Assistant cannot be subjected to

transfer.

This Court is of the opinion that the transfer is an incidental of service, more so, a condition of service. An employee who entered into public

service is liable for transfer and no writ can be entertained against the order of transfer in a routine manner. A writ petition against the transfer can

be entertained in exceptional circumstances, if it is established that the order of transfer was issued by an authority having no jurisdiction or if

allegations of mala fide are raised or if the same is in violation of the statutory Rules in force. Even in case of raising allegation of mala fide the

authority against whom such an allegation is made, has to be impleaded as party respondent in his personal capacity. In the absence of anyone of

these legal grounds, no writ petition can be entertained against the order of transfer.

The order of transfer, being an incidental to service, cannot be challenged and no writ can be issued against the same. In the case on hand, the

writ petitioner has raised a ground by stating that the order impugned was issued on mala fide exercise of power. However, the writ petitioner has

miserably failed to substantiate the averment made in this writ petition. Mere making a statement in the affidavit is insufficient for considering the

relief as such sought for in this writ petition. The allegations of mala fide are to be substantiated by producing sufficient documents and by

impleading the authority in his personal capacity. In the absence of any of the one the legal grounds, a mere statement in the affidavit, cannot be a

ground for considering the writ petition on the ground of mala fide.

Secondly the writ petitioner has raised that he is working as a Laboratory Assistant and therefore he cannot be transferred. However, the writ

petitioner has not produced any such Rule prohibiting the transfer of Laboratory Assistant from one station to another station. In the absence any

such transfer policy by the employer, this Court cannot consider the same.

At the out set, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petitioner had already served for more than 7 years in the same station at Kovilpatti by

virtue of the interim order granted by this Court in this writ petition. Thus, it is a concession granted and therefore, the writ petitioner has to join

duty in accordance with the order of transfer or if any transfer order is issued.

Accordingly, no further orders are required and the grounds raised in this writ petition deserve no further consideration. Accordingly, the writ

petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.(MD) Nos.1 & 2 of 2010 are closed.