Madras High Court
V.Rajasekaran vs The Principal District Judge on 29 September, 2021
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee, P.D.Audikesavalu
W.P.No.5696 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.09.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
W.P.No.5696 of 2021
V.Rajasekaran .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal District Judge,
Salem District,
Salem.
2.The Chief Administrative Officer,
Principal District Court,
Salem District,
Salem. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
relating to proceedings in A.No.10/A/2021 dated 25.01.2021 passed
by the 1st respondent, quash the same to the extent of deferring the
petitioner's deployment as Bench Clerk Grade III and consequently
direct the respondents to redeploy the petitioner as Bench Clerk
Grade- III by placing his name at Serial No.16 in the redeployment
order of the 1st respondent dated 25.01.2021.
__________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.5696 of 2021
For the Petitioner : Mr.M.Elango
For the Respondents : Mr.M.Santhanaraman
ORDER
(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner's name was not included among the employees who were redeployed from one position to another in the exercise undertaken in January of this year.
2. At the outset, it must be clarified that redeployment does not amount to promotion. When an employee is redeployed from one position to another, it is obvious that the two positions carry the same emoluments and perquisites and are, for all practical purposes, seen to be equivalent posts.
3. At the relevant time, the petitioner faced disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, when the list of personnel redeployed was published, it was expressly mentioned that the petitioner had not been considered since the petitioner faced disciplinary proceedings. __________ Page 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.5696 of 2021 However, while referring to the petitioner, the expression used was that the petitioner had not been considered for promotion. The error is compounded in the affidavit filed by the Principal District Judge, Salem. In such affidavit, the Principal District Judge has referred to Section 7(1) of Part-A (II) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Condition of Service) Act. In this connection, the District Judge has also referred to an alternative remedy being available in such a situation. The District Judge does not appear to have indicated the correct position, but no prejudice has been occasioned to the petitioner as a result.
4. So as not to allow the personnel to stagnate in one position and to rotate the employees from one section or department to another, the exercise of redeployment is undertaken by the employer. Redeployment may also happen upon the employer finding a particular employee more suitable in a different position than the position where such employee has been placed. Since redeployment does not entail any privilege or benefit, as to how and when and in what manner the exercise of redeployment would be conducted, is not something that a concerned employee may assert. It is possible that one employee may not be redeployed whereas his colleagues in the same post may all be __________ Page 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.5696 of 2021 redeployed.
5. The exercise of redeployment, if appreciated, will provide the key to the matter. Redeployment is for the administrative purpose and may or may not be as per the exigencies. It may be a routine redeployment or it may be a redeployment based on a particular need or for other purposes that the employer may think it appropriate to bring about greater efficiency in the functioning. It does not give or take away any benefit or right and, as such, an employee who has been redeployed or another who has not been considered for being redeployed cannot raise any grievance since there is no material benefit - and, consequently prejudice - suffered by the concerned employee. In a sense, it is akin to a transfer from one department to the other and the only benefit or advantage may be that the department could be closer to the gate or further away from the gate.
6. W.P.No.5696 of 2021 is disposed of without any order since the redeployment denied to the petitioner has not resulted in any prejudice in any matter or form to the petitioner. There will be no order as to costs. WMP Nos.6314 and 6316 of 2021 are closed. __________ Page 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.5696 of 2021
7. In the event the disciplinary proceedings are concluded, if the petitioner makes a request for redeployment to be post of Bench Clerk Grade III, it will be open to the employer to consider the same in the appropriate spirit.
(S.B., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
29.09.2021
Index : Yes/No
kpl/drm
To:
1.The Principal District Judge,
Salem District,
Salem.
2.The Chief Administrative Officer,
Principal District Court,
Salem District,
Salem.
__________
Page 5 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.5696 of 2021
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.
(kpl/drm)
W.P.No.5696 of 2021
29.09.2021
__________
Page 6 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/