01Facts
The petitioners, husband and wife, were Assistant Directors of Horticulture posted at Natham and Thoppampatti Blocks, respectively, in Dindigul District.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 1, 3By orders dated 21 May 2025, the husband was transferred to Thiruvadanai Block, Ramanathapuram District, and the wife to Natham Block.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 1, 3The husband had been transferred to Natham less than a year earlier; the wife had previously been posted to Thoppampatti on spouse-working grounds.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 1, 3They challenged the orders under Article 226, citing the difficulty of caring for their young children while posted apart.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 1, 3The respondents subsequently identified vacancies for Assistant Directors at Senkottai and Kuruvikulam in Tenkasi District.
p. 5 · ¶ 502Issues
i.Whether the transfer orders should be interfered with where their implementation would separate the petitioners, who are spouses with young children.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 1, 3ii.Whether the petitioners could be accommodated at nearby postings under the Government’s spouse-working policy, having regard to available vacancies.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 4–603Law Applied
The petitioners invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 to challenge the transfer orders.
pp. 1–2, prayersThe Court applied the Government’s policy that spouses in Government service may, on spouse-working grounds, be accommodated at the same or a nearby place.
p. 5 · ¶ 4The order cites no specific statute or judicial precedent.
It also states that employees accommodated on this basis are expected to discharge their duties diligently and that the respondents may reconsider the arrangement if there is any fault or deficiency in their service.
p. 6 · ¶ 604Reasoning
The Court considered the petitioners’ family circumstances and the Government’s spouse-working policy, and invited the respondents to identify nearby postings where both could be placed.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 4–6The Additional Government Pleader confirmed that vacancies existed at Senkottai and Kuruvikulam in Tenkasi District.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 4–6In light of that confirmation, the Court directed that the petitioners be accommodated at Tenkasi rather than determine the matter solely by quashing the transfer orders.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 4–605Holding
The writ petitions were allowed, with a direction to the respondents to accommodate the petitioners at Tenkasi in the available postings identified before the Court.
p. 6 · ¶ 6The Court added that the respondents could reconsider the arrangement in the event of any fault or deficiency in the petitioners’ service.
p. 6 · ¶ 6No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
p. 6 · ¶ 6Original Court PDF
R.Mohammed AseefvsThe Director
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
