High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Transfer Order — No Grounds for Review Established. The court found that the petitioner had joined the transferred position and served for over seven months, making the review of the transfer order unnecessary.

High Court: Madras High Court Bench: Principal
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, M. Abdul Mujeeb, challenging an order of transfer issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 07-01-2026. The petitioner sought to quash the Tribunal's order and requested a transfer from the office of the Chief General Manager, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur, to the office of the Chief Managing Director, Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi. The Tribunal dismissed the original application as infructuous since the petitioner had already joined the transferred position in January 2026. The High Court noted that the petitioner had been serving in the new position for more than seven months, rendering the review of the transfer order unnecessary. The court concluded that if the petitioner had any grievances, he could approach the competent authority for resolution. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Headnote

A) Administrative Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Review of Transfer Order - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner challenged a transfer order after joining the new position, leading to the dismissal of the application as infructuous. The court held that reviewing the transfer order was not warranted as the petitioner had been serving in the new position for over seven months and advised seeking redressal from the competent authority for any grievances (Paras 1-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the order of transfer issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal can be reviewed after the petitioner has joined the transferred position.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner had been serving in the transferred position for over seven months, and advised him to seek redressal from the competent authority for any grievances.

Law Points

  • Writ jurisdiction
  • Transfer orders
  • Administrative Tribunal decisions
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (MAD) (08) 89

WP No. 31470 of 2026

2026-08-10

S. M. Subramaniam, N. Senthilkumar

Mr.P.Saravanan, Mr.V.Chandrasekaran

M.Abdul Mujeeb

Union of India and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging a transfer order.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of the transfer order and direction for transfer to a different office.

Filing Reason

Challenging the order of transfer issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Previous Decisions

The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the original application as infructuous.

Issues

Review of transfer order after joining new position

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued for quashing the transfer order Respondents contended that the application was infructuous

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that once the petitioner joined the transferred position, the grounds for reviewing the transfer order ceased to exist.

Judgment Excerpts

The present writ petition has been instituted challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 07.01.2026. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the Original Application as infructuous. The question of reviewing the order of transfer passed eight months back, does not arise at all.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order of transfer from the Central Administrative Tribunal, which had dismissed the original application as infructuous.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Custodian's Order for Lack of Jurisdiction in Evacuee Property Restoration Case. Custodian of Evacuee Property Had No Authority to Entertain Application Under Section 15 of Goa Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1964.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Provincial Insolvency Act Case Regarding Validity of Official Receiver's Sale Deed. Annulment Under Section 35 Restores Insolvent's Rights, and Section 37(1) Does Not Save Transfer Deed Executed Without Co-owner's Conse...