ORDER: The two petitioners, who are working as consolidated workers in the respondent University, filed the Writ Petitions challenging an order dated 20.6.2012 wherein and by which the petitioners were posted to work at P.G. Extension Centre of the University created within the campus of Government Arts College, Dharmapuri. 2. Notice of Motion was ordered in the two Writ Petitions. Interim stay was granted for a period of two weeks. Subsequently, it was extended till 1.8.2012. Aggrieved by the grant of interim order, the University filed M.P.No.3 of 2012 in each of the Writ Petition to vacate the interim order. The said applications are supported by the counter affidavit sworn to by the University incharge. 3. Heard Mr.K.Selvaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Godson Swaminathan, learned Standing Counsel for the University. 4. The principal contention against the transfer raised by the petitioner was that it does not come within the statutes of the University providing for service conditions of the employees in the University and the Regulations only mentions about full time employee appointed to any post and the petitioners do not belong to either Groups 'A' or 'B' or 'C' or 'D' and even the foreign service is contemplated only for a regular employee of the University and lastly it was contended that out of 400 consolidated workers, the petitioners have been chosen arbitrarily and since they are lowly paid, they should not be transferred. If the transfer is given effect to, they have to travel 60 Kms., or shift the family to the transferred place, which is not feasible for compliance. 5. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the centre was newly established by the orders of the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.76, Higher Education (H2) Department dated 25.5.2012. The State Government permitted the University to start Extension Centre in Dharmapuri District in respect of the respondent University. Consequently, the University has started Post Graduate Coursers in Computer Science, Physics, Mathematics, Geology and Bio-technology and thereafter for the purpose of carrying the work in the Extension Centre, the workers mentioned in the impugned order were directed to be posted in the said Centre. It was stated that there was no personal issue against the petitioners. Consequently, the University has started Post Graduate Coursers in Computer Science, Physics, Mathematics, Geology and Bio-technology and thereafter for the purpose of carrying the work in the Extension Centre, the workers mentioned in the impugned order were directed to be posted in the said Centre. It was stated that there was no personal issue against the petitioners. On the contrary it was stated that in the newly started Extension Centre, they require experienced staff to take care of administrative work and it was done in the larger interest of rural and poor students to pursue the Post Graduate degree. There is no reduction in the emoluments of the petitioners. The other workers who are similarly transferred to other Extension Centres drawing consolidated salary, have also joined at the transferred places, namely Mettur, Harur, Edapadi. While these locations were 60 Kms away from the University, the present petitioners have to travel only 30 Kms., from their residence. The decision was taken by the Vice Chancellor vide order dated 20.6.2012 and the three other persons covered by the impugned order have already joined in the Extension Centre. 6. Insofar as the Rules and Regulations framed by the respondent University are concerned, they do not have the specific provision for any transfer to the centre. But, it is open to the University to transfer any person depending upon the requirement of the University. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.7109 of 2009 etc., dated 1.11.2010 in Cement and Quarry Workers Union, Tirunelveli District vs. The Secretary to Government and others. It is not clear as to how the said judgment will have any assistance to the petitioners. In that case, union raised an industrial dispute regarding the transfer of the persons from one unit to another unit of the same factory. When reference was declined, they challenged the order of the Government. In that context, reliance was placed upon the Standing Orders from the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 and this Court observed that any malafide transfer is covered by Schedule V of the Industrial Disputes Act. When reference was declined, they challenged the order of the Government. In that context, reliance was placed upon the Standing Orders from the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 and this Court observed that any malafide transfer is covered by Schedule V of the Industrial Disputes Act. But the larger question that was decided was as to whether it was a malafide transfer or whether there was illegality in the transfer and whether the Government at the time of issuance of Order under Section 10(1) can go into such questions. In was in that context, that decision was rendered. 8. Yet another point raised by the petitioner is that the order was signed by the Registrar incharge of the University, who cannot exercise the power. Such a question does not arise as the Registrar of the University is the principal executive of the University and he has to carry out orders of the Vice Chancellor as well as the various bodies and therefore, as contended in the counter affidavit, the decision to redeploy the petitioners will arise out of the order passed by the Vice Chancellor. 9. In any event, the question as to whether a person holding the charge can discharge the duties of the said post came to be considered by a Full Bench of this Court in A. Savariarvs. the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission reported in 2008 (4) CTC 753 and it was held that there is no impediment by such person to exercise the duties of the said post. 10. Lastly, Mr.K.Selvaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the University may be directed to reconsider the decision. That question does not arise. If the petitioners make a representation, naturally the University will apply its mind and dispose of the representation. Dismissal of the Writ Petition will not disentitle the petitioners from submitting representation and the respondent in considering the representation of the petitioners, if they are otherwise eligible. With this observation, both Writ Petitions stand dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.