JUDGMENT : R. SURESH KUMAR, J.:— The prayer sought for herein in this writ petition is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to Se.Mu.Aa. No. Va.Ni2(2)/18137/2018 dated 26.11.2019 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 16.08.2018 and 12.12.2018 within a stipulated time period in accordance with law. 2. Heard Mr. C. Senthil Murugan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. J. Padmavathi Devi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner has been working as Village Assistant at Kundukulam Village, Madurai East Taluk, Madurai District. In view of the family circumstances, where her son is staying or working at Chennai, she seems to have made a request for transfer from Madurai District Revenue Unit to Chennai District Revenue Unit. The said request has been turned down or rejected by the first respondent vide impugned proceedings dated 26.11.2019 where the first respondent has stated the following:— 12. Transfer:— (1) Village Servants may be transferred either on administrative grounds or on request amounting to mutual transfer within the district but such transfer shall be made on valid grounds to be recorded in writing. (2) Any transfer under sub-rule (1) shall be made by the Revenue Divisional Officer within a taluk and the District Collector within the district. 11. Transfer and postings Every person appointed to the post shall be liable to be transferred to any place (i) within the Taluk by the Tahsildar; (ii) within the Revenue Division by the Revenue Divisional Officer; (iii) within the district by the District Collector; and iv) on administrative grounds, outside the district by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration. (c) The person appointed to the post shall belong to the Taluk to which he is appointed” 4. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by relying upon some of the Inter District Transfer orders made by the first respondent for some of the Village Assistants on their own willingness due to their family circumstances, which having been obtained through RTI Act, have been filed before this Court. 6. 5. In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by relying upon some of the Inter District Transfer orders made by the first respondent for some of the Village Assistants on their own willingness due to their family circumstances, which having been obtained through RTI Act, have been filed before this Court. 6. In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has very much relied upon an order of Inter District Transfer given by the first respondent vide his proceedings dated 16.02.2020, where some of the Village Assistants, who had been working in Chengalpat District (erstwhile Kancheepuram District) were transferred to Chennai District. In order to appreciate the circumstances under which, such transfer has been made, the relevant portions of the order dated 16.02.2020 are extracted hereunder: i. within the Taluk by the Taluk Tahsildar ii. within the Revenue Division by the Revenue Divisional Officer. iii. Within the district by the District Collector; and iv. On administrative grounds, outside the district by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration. (c) The person appointed to the post shall belong to the Taluk to which he is appointed” 7. In the impugned order, the very same rules and regulations having been quoted by the first respondent, the request of the petitioner has been rejected despite the fact that both sponsoring District as well as the receiving District Collectors have given their consent for such transfer, insofar as the case of the petitioner. 8. However, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents relying upon yet another transfer order dated 06.01.2020, which was also filed in the typed set of papers of the petitioner, has pointed out that, the transfer for the Village Assistants, is purely due to administrative reason that, the Kancheepuram District has been bifurcated further into Kancheepuram District and Chegalpattu District because of which, transfers were necessitated. 9. Therefore, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would further submit that, insofar as the case of the petitioner is concerned, such a contingency was not available, therefore, the first respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner for Inter District Transfer. 10. I have considered the submissions made by both sides and have perused the materials placed before this Court. 11. The rule position is one and the same. 10. I have considered the submissions made by both sides and have perused the materials placed before this Court. 11. The rule position is one and the same. When the Village Assistants are appointed, only the Taluk would be considered as a unit, within which, the transfer could be made by the Tahsildar and if it is beyond the Taluk, the District Collector would make the transfer orders within the District. 12. Suppose, if a Village Assistant seeks for Inter District Transfer, that can be considered only by the first respondent i.e., Commissioner for Revenue Administration, where, if the acceptable reasons are available, such transfer also would be possible to be made by the first respondent/the Commissioner for Revenue Administration. 13. Here in the case in hand, the request has been made by the petitioner to have the Inter District Transfer from Madurai to Chennai and the said request having been accepted and forwarded by both the sponsoring District at Madurai and receiving District at Chennai through the respective Collectors, therefore, there can be no impediment administratively for effecting the transfer. However, in the impugned order, the first respondent has quoted the rule position that, Inter District Transfer cannot be permitted. 14. The said reasoning is not justifiable because, in the very same circumstances, by an order dated 16.02.2020 some of the Village Assistants, who were working in Chengalpattu District, had been given Inter District Transfer to Chennai District and a reason for such transfer is only on the ground of personal request due to family circumstances. 15. It is to be noted that, no administrative reason has been given and the Commissioner for Revenue Administration has not put those rules and regulations against those transfers. 16. On a perusal of the said order, this Court feels that, some discrimination seems to have been shown in respect of the petitioner, as the reason cited in the impugned order, may not be sustainable if comparing with the reason given by the very same first respondent in his order dated 16.02.2020 where, similarly placed persons were considered for Inter District Transfer. 17. If at all, the first respondent strictly wants to implement the rule position by prohibiting the Inter District Transfer, such a Inter District Transfer should have been taken away from the purview of the administration. 17. If at all, the first respondent strictly wants to implement the rule position by prohibiting the Inter District Transfer, such a Inter District Transfer should have been taken away from the purview of the administration. The power vested with the first respondent i.e., Principal Secretary and the Commissioner of Revenue Administration to make an Inter District Transfer is, in the considered opinion of this Court, only to meet the contingency like this, where the request of every individual has to be considered and decided on its own merits. 18. Here in the case in hand, the very same reason cited by the first respondent in rejecting the plea of the petitioner has not been cited in the case of the similarly placed persons as reflected in the order dated 16.02.2020, therefore, the present reason cited in the impugned order, in the considered opinion of this Court, is un-sustainable, hence, in the eye of law, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 19. In the light of the above, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order by quashing the same and remitting the matter back to the respondents for reconsideration. 20. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondents, especially, the first respondent to reconsider and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law. 21. It is made clear that while reconsidering the same, the request made by the petitioner on family circumstances, where the mother is in Madurai and the son is in Chennai, can also be taken into account pragmatically and accordingly revised order shall be passed on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 22. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.