ORDER
P. Sathasivam, J.
1. Aggrieved against the order of transfer transferring the petitioner from Dharmapuri Electricity Distribution Circle to Villupuram Ramasamy Padayachiar Electricity Distribution Circle, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the said order on various grounds.
2. The case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is briefly stated hereunder :
He entered into the service of the respondents as ‘Helper’ on April 1, 1977 and he was promoted as ‘Commercial Assistant’ on October 31, 1981. Subsequently, he was promoted as ‘Commercial Inspector’ and posted to the office of the Assistant Engineer, (0 & M), Pulikarai. On May 29, 1997 he was served with a memo dated May 20, 1997 issued by the first respondent transferring him and posting to Villupuram Ramasami Padayachiar Electricity Distribution Circle. Aggrieved against the said order of transfer, he has filed the above writ petition.
3. On June 20, 1997 this Court has ordered ‘Notice of motion’ to the respondents. In pursuance of the said notice the respondents were represented by their counsel. However, they have not filed any counter affidavit.
4. In the light of the above factual position, I have heard Mr. S. Elamurugan learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A. N. Sivaprakasam learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is the present order of transfer is in violation of Standing Order 28 of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Standing Orders. Relying on the said Standing Orders he submitted that the impugned order of transfer transferring him from one system to another system cannot be sustained. He also submitted that the present impugned order is in violation of the guidelines framed by the respondent/Electricity Board.
6. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that there is no need to keep the petitioner in one station. The impugned order of transfer was made purely on administrative grounds. Hence, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. In the light of the above pleadings, I have carefully considered the rival submissions.
8. In order to appreciate the first contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I hereby extract the relevant Regulations viz., Regulation 28 of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Standing Orders for Workmen :-
“Transfers :- Every workman shall normally be liable to be transferred in the same category or grade therein, only with the system or establishment, which is taken as a basis for maintaining seniority list in the grade or category in which the workman is employed, subject to the condition that the pay and seniority of the workman in the category or grade are not adversely affected by such transfer.
In respect of promotion to a higher post, the workman may be liable to be transferred outside the system or establishment in which he is employed”.
9. It is true that every workman shall normally be liable to be transferred in the same category or grade therein, only within the system or establishment. However, there is an exception if the transfer is in pursuance of promotion to a higher post, the concerned workman may be liable to be transferred outside the system in which he is employed. Here, in this case the impugned order shows that due to administrative grounds the petitioner has been transferred from Dharmapuri Electricity Distribution Circle to Villupuram Ramasamy Padayachiar Electricity Distribution Circle. A bare reading of Regulation 28 to some extent supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, as contended by him, it is not a complete bar in effecting transfers from one circle to another circle or one system to another system. When the competent authority in this case, Electricity Board more particularly the Chief Engineer (Personnel) feels that due to administrative grounds the petitioner has to work at Villupuram Ramasamy Padayachiar Electricity Distribution Circle, unless it is shown that the said action is tainted with mala fide intention it is not possible for this Court to interfere with the said order of transfer. Even in Regulation 28, it is mentioned that every workman shall “normally” be liable to be transferred in the same category or grade therein, only within the system or establishment. In view of the limited restriction in Regulation 28 in the absence of any specific bar, it is not correct to attribute any motive in the impugned order of transfer. In those circumstance, I am unable to accept the first contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
10. The other objection of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the present transfer has been made even before the expiry of three years period fixed in the guidelines. According to him, the petitioner joined the present station on January 12, 1995 and three years period would expire only in the year 1998. Here also the guideline is prescribed in order to facilitate smooth functioning of the administration. Those guidelines have to be made use for the proper and better administration. There is no complete statutory bar is under any circumstance, workman or clerical staff is barred from transferring before expiry of three years. As already stated these guidelines are intended to facilitate better administration and convenience of all the persons concerned. As stated earlier, in the absence of any complete bar, it cannot be said that the transfer after expiry of 2-1/2 years and before the expiry of three years is bad. Hence, there is no substance even in the second objection also.
11. Under these circumstance, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. Consequently, W.M.P.No. 13218 of 1997 is also dismissed. The petitioner is granted a weeks time to join and report before the transferred authority.
12. Petitions dismissed.