W.P.(MD)No.8229 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR W.P.(MD)No.8229 of 2026 and W.M.P.(MD)No.6722 of 2026 Dr.T.Thirunavukarasan ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Department of Animal Hunbandry, Dairying, Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai Tamil Nadu-600 009 2.The Director, Department of Animal Hunbandry and Veterinary Services, No.571, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600 035. 3.The Additional Director (Veterinary Services), Department of Animal Hunbandry and Veterinary Services, No.571, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600 035. 4.Dr.G.Vasantharani 5.Dr.K.Muthukumar ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.8229 of 2026 in Se.Na.Ka.No.9796/C3/2024 dated 16.02.2026 and the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Se.Na.Ka.No.36977/C1/2025 dated 14.03.2026 insofar as it promotes the 5th and 6th respondents as Veterinary Surgeon of Samayanallur Veterinary Hospital and Assistant Director of Thirumangalam Division respectively, QUASH the same and further direct the 2nd respondent to give transfer to the petitioner to either of the post of Veterinary Surgeon, Veterinary Hospital, Samayanallur, or to the post of Assistant Director, Thirumangalam, or in any other post in Madurai Region, within a time frame as may be stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Muhilan For R-1 to R-3 : Mrs.K.Porkodi Government Pleader For R-4 & R-5 : Mr.V.N.Arjun ***** O R D E R Heard Mr.T.Muhilan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mrs.K.Porkodi, learned Government Pleader, who takes notice for Respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.V.N.Arjun, learned Counsel, who takes notice for Respondents 4 and 5. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, challenging the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in Se.Na.Ka.No.9796/C3/2024 dated 16.02.2026 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.8229 of 2026 and the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Se.Na.Ka.No. 36977/C1/2025 dated 14.03.2026 insofar as it promotes the 5th and 6th respondents as Veterinary Surgeon of Samayanallur Veterinary Hospital and Assistant Director of Thirumangalam Division respectively and further direct the 2nd respondent to give transfer to the petitioner to either of the post of Veterinary Surgeon, Veterinary Hospital, Samayanallur, or to the post of Assistant Director, Thirumangalam, or in any other post in Madurai Region. 3. 3. When the matter was taken up on 07.07.2026, this Court passed the following order: “This Court, after having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the counter- affidavit filed by the third respondent, is prima facie convinced that the third respondent herein has been acting deliberately to avoid posting of the petitioner at Madurai by furnishing frivolous reasons. While passing the impugned order, one of the reasons assigned therein for not accommodating the petitioner at Madurai is that there was no vacancy. If that be the case, when vacancy arose subsequently, the third respondent ought to have considered the case of the petitioner before posting the respondents 4 & 5 at Madurai. Further, from the counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent, it is also noticed that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, though the petitioner was noway responsible for such misconduct and subsequently, the 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.8229 of 2026 said disciplinary proceedings were dropped. All these show that the third respondent has been acting deliberately with personal vengeance against the petitioner and to see that the petitioner's request is not considered by whatever means. In the circumstances, this Court is inclined to direct the personal appearance of the third respondent before this Court to explain as to why the petitioner is not being accommodated at Madurai on the ground of spouse employment category and and as to why the impugned proceeding has been issued solely on the ground that the petitioner has not enclosed the spouse employment certificate, instead of calling for the same from the petitioner before passing the impugned order. However, considering the request made by Mrs.K.Porkodi, learned counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, this Court intends to afford one opportunity before passing appropriate orders to the third respondent. 2. At request of Mrs.K.Porkodi, learned counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, list the matter on 16.07.2026.” 4. When the matter was taken up on 16.07.2026, this Court passed the following order: “In paragraph No.10 of the counter affidavit, it is stated the impugned order has been communicated by the third respondent only on receipt of the order of the second respondent the Director. 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.8229 of 2026 2. However, no such order of the Director is forthcoming nor there was any reference to such order passed by the second respondent in the impugned proceedings dated 16.02.2026. The said statement made by the third respondent in the counter affidavit appears to be only with a view to mislead this Court. 3. Hence, the learned Government Pleader is directed to produce the original records pertaining to the impugned proceedings dated 16.02.2026. 4. List on 20.07.2026.” 5. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 16.07.2026, the original records have been placed before this Court. However, the learned Government Pleader failed to bring to the notice of this Court any order passed by the 2nd respondent, as referred to by the 3rd respondent in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the statement made in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit was made by the 3rd respondent by mistake. 6. It is now admitted by Mrs.K.Porkodi, learned Government Pleader, that the 3rd respondent has been delegated powers only to look after Court cases and file counter affidavits, etc., and that he is not authorised to pass orders like the one impugned in the present Writ Petition. 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.8229 of 2026 7. This Court, after carefully considering the submissions made on either side, is of the view that the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained, especially in the teeth of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.24822 of 2025, dated 22.09.2025, whereby this Court directed the 2nd respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.07.2025 on merits and in accordance with law, but the same was considered and rejected by the 3rd respondent instead of the 2nd Respondent. 8. In the circumstances, the impugned proceedings are quashed and the matter is remanded back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner is at liberty to submit a fresh representation before the 1st respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation, the competent authority shall pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks therefrom. While passing order as directed above, the 2nd respondent shall keep in mind that the posts in which respondents 5 and 6 herein have been posted and the vacancies that arose after rejection of the representation of the petitioner by the 3rd respondent instead of accommodating the petitioner in any one of the said posts. 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.8229 of 2026 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of on the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. 10. While disposing of the Writ Petition, it came to the notice of this Court during the course of hearing that, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the principal grounds of challenge to the impugned proceedings, this Court is prima facie convinced that the 3rd respondent has made a calculated attempt to mislead this Court and deny relief to the petitioner as seen from paragraph No.10 of the counter affidavit, which he has been attempting to do ever since this Court passed the earlier order. Hence, the 3rd respondent is directed to file an affidavit on or before the next date of hearing, explaining as to why he should not be prosecuted for having filed a false affidavit before this Court and also to show cause as to why appropriate contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him. 11. List the matter on 30.07.2026. 20.07.2026 Index :Yes / No Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No Nsr 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.8229 of 2026 To: 1.The Secretary to Government, Department of Animal Hunbandry, Dairying, Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai Tamil Nadu-600 009 2.The Director, Department of Animal Hunbandry and Veterinary Services, No.571, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600 035. 3.The Additional Director (Veterinary Services), Department of Animal Hunbandry and Veterinary Services, No.571, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600 035. 8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.8229 of 2026 MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR , J. Nsr Order made in W.P.(MD)No.8229 of 2026 20.07.2026 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis