WA/1358/2024 of V.SUGANTHUPRIYAN Vs THE DIRECTOR OF SERICULTURE on 21 September 2026

1. The Director of Sericulture, Nethaji Nagar, Hasthampatti, Salem - 636 007.

Hasthampatti, Salem - 636 007.

3. The Deputy Director of Sericulture (Admin) Nethaji Nagar, Hasthampatti, Salem - 636 007.

4. The Assistant Director of Sericulture Thally Road, Denkanikottai, Krishnagiri District - 635 107. … Respondents

W.A.No.1359 of 2024 CNR:{HCMA010797712024} V.Sundar … Appellant -vs-

Nethaji Nagar, Hasthampatti, Salem - 636 007.

Hasthampatti , Salem - 636 007.

3. The Deputy Director of Sericulture (Admin) Nethaji Nagar, Hasthampatti, Salem - 636 007.

4. The Assistant Director of Sericulture Foulkes Compound Anaimedu, Salem - 636 001. … Respondents W.A.No.1358 of 2024 Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.8403 of 2024 dated 26.03.2024 passed by the learned Judge and consequently allow the Writ Petition.

Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.8399 of 2024 dated 26.03.2024 passed by the learned Judge and consequently allow the Writ Petition, thereby setting aside the order of transfer dated 15.03.2024 bearing Proc. No.596/E4/2024-6, issued by the 1st Respondent as illegal, unsustainable in law and against all principles of natural justice. For Appellants: Mr.C.P. Sivamohan For Respondents: Mrs.Y.Kavitha, Addl. Govt. Pleader ****** C O M M O N J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam,J.) Under assail is the common writ order dated 26.03.2024 passed in W.P.No.8403 and 8399 of 2024. In writ petitions, challenge was made to the order of transfer and Writ Court, by common order dated 26.03.2024, dismissed both writ petitions, holding that transfer is incidental to service conditions. Aggrieved by the same, writ petitioners / appellants herein are before this Court.

2. Governing principles in the matter of administrative transfer are as follows:

i) Transfer is an incidental to service, more so, conditions of service;

ii) An order of transfer can be challenged only on the grounds of jurisdiction and mala fide. Even if mala fide is alleged by an employee, such authority on whom such allegation is made, should be impleaded in his personal capacity and such malafides should be proven beyond any pale of doubt;

iii) Administrative transfer per se would not provide a cause of action for instituting writ proceedings;

iv) High Court is not expected to interfere with the day-to-day administration of the Government departments;

v) Place and post can never be the choice of an employee. The competent authority is empowered to place an employee in a post for effective and efficient administration. Unnecessary interference by the High Court would cause prejudice to the cause of public administration; vi) Transfer guidelines are issued to avoid inconsistency while effecting transfers and to maintain transparency. These guidelines are issued enabling the competent authority to exercise their powers in a diligent manner and to eliminate unnecessary discrimination amongst the employees in the matter of transfers. Since the transfer is condition of service, transfer guidelines do not confer enforceable right to the employees;

vii) The primary purpose of issuing the guidelines is to improve transparency in the administration. Thus, it is for the convenience of the establishment and would not confer any right on the employees to claim place or post as a matter of right.

3. Interference by High Court may cause prejudice to the interest of public administration. Administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or outlining transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redressal. Any grievance relating to administrative transfer cannot be put to challenge by way of writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

4. Coming to the facts of the case, appellant in W.A.No.1358 of 2024 was transferred from Denkanikottai, Krishnagiri District to

Courtalam, Tenkasi District and appellant in W.A.No.1359 of 2024 was transferred from Attur, Salem District to Talavadi, Erode District. Transfer orders were issued on administrative ground and in pursuance of the interim order granted by this Court in present appeals, appellants are continuing in the same place for more than two years. Any further concession or leniency is unwarranted. In the present case, appellants have not raised any acceptable ground to interfere with the order of Writ Court.

5. Consequently, both Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 21-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AR

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN,J. AR To:

1. The Director of Sericulture, Nethaji Nagar, Hasthampatti, Salem - 636 007.

Hasthampatti, Salem - 636 007.

3. The Deputy Director of Sericulture (Admin) Nethaji Nagar, Hasthampatti, Salem - 636 007.

4. The Assistant Director of Sericulture Thally Road, Denkanikottai, Krishnagiri District - 635 107.

5. The Assistant Director of Sericulture Foulkes Compound Anaimedu, Salem - 636 001. W.A.Nos.1358 and 1359 of 2024 21-09-2026