IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 22..4..2008 Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice P.K. MISRA and The Honourable Mr.Justice K.CHANDRU W. P. Nos. 14832 to 14834 of 2003 and W.P.M.P. Nos. 18563, 18565 and 18568 of 2003 M. Vaithialingam ..Petitioner in W.P. No. 14832 of 2003 U.V.Natarajan ..Petitioner in W.P. No. 14833 of 2003 1. G. Nagarajan 2. K. Rajendran 3. G. Durairajan 4. M. Selvadurai 5. D. Sundararajan 6. C. Palaniyandi 7. S. Diraviyasamy 8. V. Sampath 9. K. Panneerselvam 10. V. Anbarasan ..Petitioners in W.P. No. 14834 of 2003 -vs- 1. The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records Thanjavur 2. The Registrar Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal Chennai ... Respondents in all W.Ps. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order passed by the Tribunal dated 20.3.2003 passed in O.A. Nos. 6767, 6966 and 6769 of 1999 respectively and the order of the first respondent in Na. Ka. No. A2/10558/99(2) dated 29.10.1999 and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr. Kandavadivel Doraisami, For Respondent 2 : Mr. M. Dhandapani, Spl. GP COMMON ORDER K. CHANDRU, J.
Heard the arguments of Mr. Kandavadivel Doraisami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.M.Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader representing the first respondent and have perused the records.
2. The three writ petitioners were all employees working in the Office of the first respondent Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Thanjavur. By the order dated 29.10.1999 passed by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Thanjavur, the three petitioners were transferred to the Thiruvarur District consequent on the initial bifurcation of the Thanjavur and Nagapattinam Districts and thereafter, due to the subsequent integration and trifurcation of the original District into three Districts, viz., Thanjavur, Thiruvarur and Nagapattinam Districts, the petitioners were given consequential posting orders by the said order dated 29.10.1999. This was challenged by the petitioners along with several other similarly placed persons before the Tribunal.
3. The Tribunal, by a common judgment dated 20.3.2003, dismissed the Original Applications. In paragraph 5 of the said order, it is stated as follows:
“The applicants do not dispute that they are comparatively juniors to the persons who have been retained in Thanjavur District and infact, some of the persons who have been allotted to Thiruvarur District actually belong to that district and all these things have been taken into consideration when staff of erstwhile Thanjavur District were allotted to other two districts and remaining persons have been retained in Thanjavur District. The applicants are all Government servants working in the Survey Department and transfer is an exigency of service and therefore they cannot be heard to contend that they shall not be transferred from Thanjavur to other two districts. Only taking into consideration the options of the employees and in the absence of option considering the seniority, the juniormost people have been transferred and deployed in other two districts. Therefore objections raised by the applicants do not hold good and there is no merit in the applications filed by them.”
Against this order, these writ petitions have been filed.
4. Order of status quo was granted by this Court on 13.5.2003.
5. A detailed counter affidavit dated 05.10.2007 was filed by the first respondent. It is now stated that even at the time of bifurcation, certain persons moved the Court and challenged the order of transfer due to re-organisation of the District. Subsequently, when a policy decision was taken, it resulted in a trifurcation, which necessarily involved redeployment of staff to the newly formed Districts. Any re-organisation will necessarily result in redeployment and the same cannot be challenged on any ground. So long as the petitioners’ post and their status and salary remain the same, the question of following any seniority rule does not arise in such redeployment. The observation made by the Tribunal in paragraph 5 of the order impugned in the writ petition extracted above, is perfectly in order and does not call for any interference.
6. In the light of the above, the writ petitions are misconceived and devoid of merits and accordingly, will stand dismissed. The status quo order will stand vacated and Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
gri
To
The Registrar
Central Administrative Tribunal
Chennai