(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order passed by this Court, dated 17.06.2026 in W.P(MD)No.4431 of 2026.)

C.V. Karthikeyan, J.

1. The Writ Appeal had been filed questioning the order, dated 17.06.2026 in W.P.(MD)No.4431 of 2021 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

2. The said Writ Petition had been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus seeking records relating to an order passed by the first respondent, the Joint Director of School Education (Personal), Chennai, in proceedings, dated 09.02.2026 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner/appellant herein to continue in the second respondent Office.

3. The appellant had been transferred from the post of Superintendent in the office of the Chief Educational Officer, Tanjavur to the post of Superintendent in the office of the Block Educational Officer, Tanjavur (Rural) on administrative grounds by a proceedings, dated 09.02.2026 of the first respondent. The appellant contended that the said transfer was punitive in nature.

4. The learned Single Judge while examining the facts had observed that in the impugned proceedings, allegations had been made against the appellant touching upon his efficiency and deficiency in performance and the transfer was on the ground that he was slow in performing his duties and in spite of repeated oral instructions, had failed to improve his performance. It was under those circumstances, that he had been transferred from the office of the Chief Educational Officer to the office of the Block Educational Officer.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the reasons attributed were not true and were mala fide in nature. He claimed that by the order of transfer, the appellant had been put to difficulty, since his daughter suffers from physical disabilities and his presence is required. He further stated that he had put in considerable years of service without any complaint and therefore, claimed that the reasons stated in the impugned proceedings were mala fide in nature and should be set aside by this Court.

6.The learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2, however, supported the order of transfer and stated that the appellant had been transferred from the Office of the Chief Educational Officer, Thanjavur to Office of the Block Educational Officer, Thanjavur (Rural) and that therefore, there could be no hardship suffered by the appellant herein.

7. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced.

8. The only ground on which the learned Counsel for the appellant resisted the order of transfer is the reasons given for the transfer, namely, attributing inefficiency and deficiency of the appellant herein. It is trite in law to point out that an order of transfer should be obeyed and rarely such order is interfered, if it had been issued on administrative ground. We note from the records that the appellant has still more than 10 years of service ahead and we are of the firm opinion that the reasons for the transfer, if permitted to remain on record, would adversely affect the future prospects of the appellant herein. But, however, the appellant necessarily has to be transferred and cannot claim a right to remain the same post continuously throughout his service.

9. This Court entered into a discussion about this particular aspect and on instructions, the learned Government Advocate stated that a post is available in the office of the Block Educational Officer, Thiruvidaimaruthur and on administrative ground, the individual holding equivalent post at Thiruvidaimaruthur would be shifted and the appellant can be appointed in Thiruvidaimaruthur.

10. We leave it to the wisdom of the appellant to take up that particular option and if he does so, he may address the first respondent/the Joint Director of School Education (Personal), Chennai, to re-transfer him to the post at Thiruvidaimaruthur. We would, however, set aside the reasons given for the transfer, namely, deficiency in service and inefficiency and hold that the transfer was only on administrative grounds. We further direct that the said reasons in this transfer order should never be held against the appellant when assessing his performance. His performance should be assessed on the basis of his functioning and the reasons given in the impugned order are set aside by us. The appellant is also permitted to participate in the counselling whenever the counselling session is held.

11. With these observations and giving an opportunity to the appellant to give a representation for alternate place of posting at Thiruvidaimaruthur, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.