Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, seven individuals, approached the High Court of Judicature at Madras by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus. They prayed for a direction to the first respondent, the Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri District Judiciary, to forthwith consider and act upon their respective representations requesting recruitment by transfer to the post of Typist under Rule 3(g) read with G.O.Ms.No.43, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.B) Department dated 15/02/1994, and to pass appropriate orders within a time frame. The second respondent was the Registrar General, Madras High Court. The petitioners had submitted representations seeking transfer appointment to the Typist post, contending that these ought to be considered by the respondents. No selection process had been initiated by the employer at the time of filing the writ petition. The respondents were represented by counsel, though no counter affidavit details are recorded in the judgment. The court examined the maintainability of the writ petition and observed that all appointments and promotions must be made strictly in accordance with the service rules in force. The court held that mere submission of a representation does not confer any right to claim appointment or promotion, nor does it enable a party to maintain writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court further stated that sending a representation and filing a writ petition to dispose of the representation, in the absence of establishing any right, would do no service to the cause of justice. The court emphasized that there must be a selection process either for appointment by way of transfer of service or promotion from the side of the employer, and only when the process is set in motion may eligible employees submit their applications. Mere submission of application or the procedures followed would not confer any right. Applying these principles, the court found that the petitioners had not established any cause for institution of the writ petition nor established any right to entertain the writ petition. Consequently, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition as misconceived, with no order as to costs. The connected miscellaneous petition, W.M.P.No.5297 of 2026, which sought permission to file a single writ petition, was ordered on payment of separate court fees. The judgment was delivered on 07-08-2026 by Justices S.M. Subramaniam and N. Senthilkumar.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment by Transfer - Writ of Mandamus - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The writ petition sought a Mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider representations for recruitment by transfer to the post of Typist under Rule 3(g) and G.O.Ms.No.43. The court held that mere submission of representation confers no right to claim appointment or promotion, and without an ongoing selection process, no cause of action for mandamus arose. The petition was dismissed as misconceived. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to direct respondents to consider representations for recruitment by transfer to the post of Typist under Rule 3(g) and G.O.Ms.No.43 when no selection process has been initiated and no legal right has been established.
Final Decision
Writ Petition dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.No.5297 of 2026) seeking permission to file a single writ petition ordered on payment of separate court fees.
Law Points
- Mere submission of representation confers no right to appointment or promotion
- all appointments and promotions must be made strictly in accordance with service rules
- writ of mandamus under Article 226 not maintainable absent established right
- selection process must be set in motion by employer
- court cannot direct consideration of representation without cause
