Petitioner Vs. Respondent

Petitioner vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Aug 30, 2016

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1188653

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1188653
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: M. Venugopal
Decided On: Aug 30, 2016
Case Number: Writ Petition (MD).No. 16289 of 2016 & W.M.P.(MD).No. 11916 of 2016
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Petitioner

Respondent

Excerpt

m. venugopal, j. 1. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. mr.aaiyuram k.selvakumar, learned government advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 2.the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 23.08.2016, whereby, the order of transfer dated 03.08.2016 transferring him from the office of the assistant elementary educational officer, thiruppuvanam, sivagangai district to the office of the district educational officer, sivagangai, sivagangai district, has been cancelled. while the petitioner was transferred by order dated 03.08.2016, it is not known why the said order has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 23.08.2016. 3. this court also finds no reason why his previous transfer order dated 03.08.2016 has been cancelled. it is well-settled legal position that no transfer order requires to be a speaking order. however, when such orders are cancelled, reasons are to be assigned. when there is no such reason given, the same is liable to be stayed for the time being. therefore, the impugned order is stayed until further orders. 4. for filing counter, four weeks time is granted. 5. post after four weeks. note to the registry: issue order copy on 31.08.2016

Full Judgment

M. Venugopal, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Aaiyuram K.Selvakumar, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

2.The petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 23.08.2016, whereby, the order of transfer dated 03.08.2016 transferring him from the Office of the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District to the Office of the District Educational Officer, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District, has been cancelled. While the petitioner was transferred by order dated 03.08.2016, it is not known why the said order has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 23.08.2016.

3. This Court also finds no reason why his previous transfer order dated 03.08.2016 has been cancelled. It is well-settled legal position that no transfer order requires to be a speaking order. However, when such orders are cancelled, reasons are to be assigned. When there is no such reason given, the same is liable to be stayed for the time being. Therefore, the impugned order is stayed until further orders.

4. For filing counter, four weeks time is granted.

5. Post after four weeks.

Note to the registry: Issue order copy on 31.08.2016

Same Court & Year Chennai Madurai · 2016 Same Parties Petitioner vs Respondent Same Subject Education Same Judge M. Venugopal