REGISTRAR GEN., HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS versus R. PERACHI & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 12 S.C.R. 661 · Decided: 19-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. PANCHAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 12 S.C.R. 661 
REGISTRAR GEN., HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT 
MADRAS 
v. 
R. PERACHI & ORS. 
(Civil appeal No. 7936 of 2011) 
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 
[J.M. PANCHAL AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Service law: 
State Judicial Ministerial Service - Transfer of employee 
A 
B 
c 
in the subordinate judiciary on administrative grounds -
Decision of Chief Justice to transfer - On facts, respondent 
working as Sheristadar in the State Judicial Ministerial 
Service was transferred outside the District by the Chief 0 
Justice - Writ petition - High Court held that the Chief Justice 
had no power to transfer the respondent unilaterally and the 
transfer was punitive and set aside the transfer because it 
would affect his promotion as P.A., directing the High Court 
to restore him in his District and confer him the post of P.A. -
E 
On appeal, held: Action of transfer against the respondent was 
on the basis of the report of the Registrar {Vigilance) -
Relevant material clearly show that the Full Court had passed 
a resolution under which the subject. of vigilance enquiries was 
retained with the Chief Justice - District Judge had opined that 
retention of the respondent in his district was undesirable from 
F 
the administration point of view - More so, the respondent did 
not dispute the power of the High Court to transfer him outside 
the district, nor the Division Bench interfered on that ground 
- Respondent himself clearly stated in his affidavit that there 
was no malafide exercise in his transfer -
Transfer is an 
G 
incident of service - One cannot make grievance if transfer 
is made on administrative grounds, without attaching any 
stigma - Pay, position and seniority of the respondent was 
not affected by the transfer, and thus, the transfer was not 
661 
H 
662 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 12 S.C.R. 
A punitive merely because his promotional chances got affected 
due to the transfer - There is no right of promotion available 
to an employee - He has a right to be considered for 
promotion - Furthermore, the integrity of the officers 
functioning in the administration is of utmost importance to 
8 
retain the confidence of the litigants in the fairness of the 
judicial system - If there is any complaint in this behalf, the 
Chief Justice is expected to act on behalf of the High Court 
to see to it that the stream of justice does not get polluted at 
any level - Thus, the decision of Chief Justice to transfer 
C respondent outside that district could not be faulted - Order 
passed by the High Court is set aside. 
Transfer of employee in the subordinate judiciary on 
administrative grounds - Passing of judicial orders by the 
High Courts - Scope of - Held: Is limited - Transfer is an 
D incident of service - One cannot make grievance if transfer 
is made on administrative grounds, without attaching any 
stigma. 
Constitution of India; 1950 - Control of the High Court 
E over the subordinate courts under - Held: Includes general 
superintendence of the working of the subordinate courts and 
their staff, since their appeals against the orders of the District 
Judges lie to the High Court - Word control in Article 235 is 
used in the comprehensive sense - It includes the control and 
1 F 
superintendence of the High Court over the subordinate 
' 
courts and the persons manning them both on the judicial and 
administrative side - Control over the subordinate courts 
vests in the High Court as a whole - However, it does not 
mean that a Full Court cannot authorize the Chief Justice in 
G respect of any matter whatsoever. 
Judicial Discipline - Judges deciding a subsequent case 
· overlooking judgment of a co-ordinate Bench - Propriety of 
- Held: Judges are bound by the earlier decision - They are 
not expected to take a different view from point of view of 
-l 
judicial discipline. 
REGISTRAR GEN., HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE 663 
AT MADRAS v. R. PERACHI 
First respondent was working as Sheristadar in the 
A 
State Judicial Ministerial Service and was holding the 
additional charge of the post of P.A. to the District Judge 
at place 'P'. The first respondent along with two head 
clerk were transferred outside the District by the order 
issued by the appellant on behalf of the High Court on 
8 
administrative grounds. The two head clerks filed writ 
petitions but the same were dismissed. The first 
respondent did not challenge his transfer at that time and 
joined the office at District 'R'. Thereafter, he came to 
know that the p

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.