Madras High Court refuses to entertain plea on transfer of govt employees

A Government Order issued in 1994 states that Government servants should not ordinarily continue in the same station beyond the prescribed period and that transfers are required to be effected in the interest of administrative efficiency, integrity, and neutrality
Madras High Court
Madras High Court
Updated on

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has refused to issue any directions in a petition seeking the transfer of government employees who have been serving in the same post for more than three years, considering the ongoing measures being undertaken by the Election Commission of India to effect such transfers.

A Government Order issued in 1994 states that Government servants should not ordinarily continue in the same station beyond the prescribed period and that transfers are required to be effected in the interest of administrative efficiency, integrity, and neutrality.

M Abdullah, president of Orunginaindha Manapparai Taluka Manavari Matrum Iravai Paasanatharargal Vivasayigal Sangam, filed a public interest litigation, based on the GO, seeking direction to the authorities to initiate action for officials continuing to serve in the same station.

He alleged that officials in departments such as the Agriculture, Revenue, Police, and Water Resources have been continuing in the same station or district for several years, in many cases well beyond the three years and due to such prolonged postings, several officials are indirectly implementing Government schemes through illegal means.

He further submitted that officials are involved, either directly or indirectly, in spreading propaganda favourable to the ruling party by misusing Governmental platforms and public resources, and that allowing them to continue in the same station for prolonged periods would be contrary to the Model Code of Conduct, potentially enabling them to act in favour of the ruling party.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arulmurugan observed that transfer is a matter incidental to service conditions and, therefore, the present petition cannot be entertained as a PIL.

Taking note of the fact that the Election Commission is already undertaking steps in this regard, the Court directed the Election Commission to consider the petitioner's representation in accordance with law and disposed of the petition.

Related Stories

No stories found.
X

DT Next
www.dtnext.in