M KANDASAMI Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer of the petitioner is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus after calling for the concerned records from the first respondent relating to the order of transfer bearing Ref. No.2527/Adm.2/A1/ F.FM.GR.I/95 dated 30.6.1995 issued by the first respondent, quash the same and issue a consequential mandamus directing the first respondent to report the petitioner at Veppur.

(2.) THE petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition states that he joined the first respondent Board in the year 1965 as a Luscar and by dint of hard work, he was promoted as Line Inspector during the year 1992-93 and on 14.9.1993 he was transferred from Tholudur to Avinangudi. THE joined duty at Avinangudi as a Line Inspector on 15.9.1993. While he was in Avinangudi he was promoted as a Grade I Foreman and on 6.4.1995 he was transferred to Veppur and joined duty at Veppur. Further he states that he gave a representation on 10.4.1995 to the first respondent requesting him to cancel the transfer order and retain him at Avinangudi itself. No reply was received from the first respondent. THE first respondent again transferred the petitioner from Veppur to Cuddalore by an order dated 30.6.1995 which is the impugned order. It is further stated that the petitioner was transferred four times during the last previous years. It is further stated that his wife is an handicapped person and she cannot look after his aged mother who is 70 years old and his younger son who is mentally retarded right from his birth. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) MR.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is an accepted principle in public service that transfer is an incident of service. However, this power of transfer has to be exercised in a just and fair manner and frequent transfers without sufficient reasons to justify such transfers cannot but be dealt to be mala fide. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel referred to the ruling of Supreme Court reported in B.Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1986 S.C. 1955. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 referred to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations and Leave Regulations Manual and Regulation 105 of the said Manual reads as follows: