G.Ganesan vs The District Collector on 27 January, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.01.2010

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
						
Writ Petition Nos.1221 & 1222 of 2010
and
 M.P.Nos.1 & 2 and 1 & 2  of 2010

G.Ganesan				 ..Petitioner in W.P.1221 of 2010

A.Agustin			         ..Petitioner in W.P.1222 of 2010
		

		Vs.

1. The District Collector,
    Perambalur.

2. The Divisional Engineer,
    Highways Department,
    Ariyalur Division,
    Ariyalur,
    Ariyalur District.

3. The Principal District Judge,
    Perambalur District Court,
    Perambalur.						..  Respondents 
								
	The writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India  to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus  to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent  in connection with the orders passed by him in his Proc.Na.Ka.No.A4/6803/2006 dated 26.7.2006 and Proc.Na.Ka.A4/32017/2007 dated 06.02.2008 and 10.10.2007 respectively  and the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his A.No.46/2008(A1) dated 06.03.2008 and Roc.No.7/2007 dated 23.10.2007 respectively and quash the same to the extent of the petitioners alone and direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner  for retransfer to any of the existing or immediate future vacancies in the post of the Office Assistant in Ariyalur Highways Division, Ariyalur District and retransfer him. 
	   For Petitioners	  :  Mr.R.Singaravelan
	   For Respondents: Mrs. Malarvizhi Udayakumar,
				    Govt.Advocate.		


COMMON ORDER
					

(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)

	This judgment shall govern these two writ petitions seeking the following relief:	
	"To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus  to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent  in connection with the orders passed by him in his Proc.Na.Ka.No.A4/6803/2006 dated 26.7.2006; and Proc.Na.Ka.A4/32017/2007 dated 06.02.2008 and Proc.Na.Ka.A4/32017/2007 dated 10.10.2007 respectively  and the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his A.No.46/2008(A1) dated 06.03.2008 and Roc.No.7/2007 dated 23.10.2007 respectively and quash the same to the extent of the petitioners alone and direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners  for retransfer to any of the existing or immediate future vacancies in the post of the Office Assistant in Ariyalur Highways Division, Ariyalur District and retransfer them."

	2. It is not in controversy that both these petitioners were appointed as Office Assistants on compassionate ground  in the Highways Department and they were serving so. When they were found to be surplus, a list was prepared and sent to the Judicial Department for appointing them in the Judicial Department. Following the same, both these petitioners were appointed as Office Assistants in the Judicial Unit in Perambalur District. Till the date of these writ petitions, they were actually serving so. These writ petitions have been brought forth seeking  re-transfer of the petitioners to the Highways Department where they were working earlier to fit them in the existing vacancy or in the vacancy which might arise in future in the Ariyalur Highways Division.

	3. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioners who reiterated the request as found in the writ petitions. The Court heard the learned counsel for the respondent State. 

	4. It is not in controversy that both the petitioners were appointed as Office Assistants in the Highways Department. While so,  the District Collector, Perambalur has forwarded a list of surplus Office Assistants including the petitioners to Principal District Judge, Perambalur for their appointment. It is not the case of the respondent State that it was a combined cadre posting with the State Government. The Judicial Department has nothing to do with the Highways Department. The preparation of such a list and sending them to the Principal District Judge for appointing them to any one of the post available in the Judicial Department was the one which should not have been made. However, the earlier appointments made by the District Judge, pursuant to the sending of the list by the District Collector, is not the subject matter of challenge. What is required by the petitioners is to re-transfer them to the Highways Department where they have  worked. In this regard, they have also given a representation dated 21.12.2009 and the Court feels that there cannot be any impediment for issuing a direction to the second respondent/ Divisional Engineer, Highways Department,  Ariyalur  Division, to consider the representation of the petitioners and disposed it of as and when vacancy arises and accordingly, a direction is issued.  The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.	
						
							(M.C.J.)       (T.R.J.)
Index:Yes/No					    27.01.2010
Internet:Yes/No					
vsi				

To
1. The District Collector,
    Perambalur.

2. The Divisional Engineer,
    Highways Department,
    Ariyalur Division,
    Ariyalur,
    Ariyalur District.

3. The Principal District Judge,
    Perambalur District Court,
    Perambalur.

















M.CHOCKALINGAM,J.

and
T.RAJA,J.

Vsi

W.P.Nos.1221 & 1222 of 2010

27.01.2010