S.Ramalingam Vs. the Additional Director

S.Ramalingam vs The Additional Director

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Nov 11, 2011

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/922744

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/922744
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: T.Raja, J.
Decided On: Nov 11, 2011
Case Number: W.P(MD)No.12697 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

S.Ramalingam

Respondent

The Additional Director

Excerpt

.....district to theni district.3. his only grievance placed before this court is to interfere with the transfer order. he had no grievance to accept the transfer order had it been passed during the transfer period, namely april-may. but in view of the fact that the impugned order has been passed during the middle of the academic year and his children are going to school and it would be very difficult to the petitioner to travel nearly 100 kms by spending eight hours every day and in the result, the petitioner would not be in a position to attend the education of his children, he prayed at least to withhold the impugned order of transfer till the completion of the academic year.4. the learned government advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the prayer made by the petitioner is not administratively workable for the reason that there has been a triangular transfer order transferring balasubramanian, ramalingam and kannaki to three different places. after transferring balasubramanian from tirunelveli district to virudhunagar district on the ground that the said balasubramanian stayed in tirunelveli for more than 9 years, he withdraw the writ petition filed by him and likely to join the transferred place at virudhunagar district. as a result,ramalingam is constrained to go to theni district from virudhunagar district. further p.kannaki who had been transferred from theni district to tirunelveli district was also relieved from the post from theni district. therefore, the question of retaining the petitioner ramalingam in virudhunagar district during the academic year will not only give problem to the administration, but also work against the other two transferred government servants, namely, kannaki and balasubramanian.5. in that view of the matter, the explanation offered by the learned government advocate finding some force, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.6. accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. consequently, connected miscellaneous.....

Full Judgment

1. The petitioner by challenging the order of transfer, dated 31.10.2011 filed the present Writ Petition to quash the same with further direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to continue at the second respondent's office, namely, in the office of the Joint Director of Agriculture, Collector Office Complex, Virudhunagar District, who has been transferred from Virudhunagar District to Theni District.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that from the date of his appointment as Junior Assistant in the cadre of Depot Manager Grade- III(Security) from 1.9.1982, he faced nine transfers. The present impugned order is the 9th transfer order transferring the petitioner from Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District to Theni District.

3. His only grievance placed before this Court is to interfere with the transfer order. He had no grievance to accept the transfer order had it been passed during the transfer period, namely April-May. But in view of the fact that the impugned order has been passed during the middle of the academic year and his children are going to school and it would be very difficult to the petitioner to travel nearly 100 Kms by spending eight hours every day and in the result, the petitioner would not be in a position to attend the education of his children, he prayed at least to withhold the impugned order of transfer till the completion of the academic year.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the prayer made by the petitioner is not administratively workable for the reason that there has been a triangular transfer order transferring Balasubramanian, Ramalingam and Kannaki to three different places. After transferring Balasubramanian from Tirunelveli District to Virudhunagar District on the ground that the said Balasubramanian stayed in Tirunelveli for more than 9 years, he withdraw the writ petition filed by him and likely to join the transferred place at Virudhunagar District. As a result,Ramalingam is constrained to go to Theni District from Virudhunagar District. Further P.Kannaki who had been transferred from Theni District to Tirunelveli District was also relieved from the post from Theni District. Therefore, the question of retaining the petitioner Ramalingam in Virudhunagar District during the academic year will not only give problem to the administration, but also work against the other two transferred Government servants, namely, Kannaki and Balasubramanian.

5. In that view of the matter, the explanation offered by the learned Government Advocate finding some force, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. No costs.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2011 Same Parties S.Ramalingam vs The Additional Director Same Subject Education Same Judge T.Raja, J.