Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2503 (MAD)

M. Radha v. Shanmugavadivu

2007-08-08

P.D.DINAKARAN, P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

body2007
Judgment :- P.D. Dinakaran, J. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 27.02.2007 made in W.P (MD) No.3643 of 2004, where under the first respondent herein had challenged the proceedings of the second respondent herein dated 08.10.2004, transferring the appellant herein from Government Higher Secondary School, Kalingappatti, Tirunelveli District to Government Higher Secondary School, Vanaramutti, Tuticorin District on the ground that the same is contrary to the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.110 School Education (E1) Department dated 18.08.2004 for transfer of teachers for the academic year 2004 – 2005. 2. Learned Single Judge by an order dated 27.02.2007 appreciating the challenge that the transfer order dated 08.10.2004, transferring the appellant herein from Government Higher Secondary School, Kalingappatti, Tirunelveli District to Government Higher Secondary School, Vanaramutti, Tuticorin District is contrary to the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.110 dated 18.08.2004, of course without disturbing the appellant herein in the middle of the academic year, permitted her to continue in Government Higher Secondary School at Vanaramutti, Tuticorin District till the end of the academic year and subsequent to relieving, directed the authorities to consider the request of the first respondent herein for transfer to Government Higher Secondary School at Vanaramutti, Tuticorin District from Government Higher Secondary School, Kalingappatti, Tirunelveli District, because as per G.O.Ms.No.110 dated 18.08.2004, the request of the teachers within the district for transfer shall be considered in priority over the request of the teachers outside the District. 3. Mr. G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.02.2007 firstly on the ground that non-compliance of the instructions and guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.110 dated 18.08.2004 shall not be a ground to quash the order of transfer as the guidelines are not mandatory. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others ..Vs.. S.L. Abbas ( 1993 (4) S.C.C. 357 ). Secondly, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the transfer order dated 08.10.2004 was not quashed by the learned Single Judge and therefore, there cannot be any consequential direction. Thirdly, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the appellant herein has already joined in Government Higher Secondary School, Vanaramutti, Tuticorin District and therefore, she should be disturbed. 4. Thirdly, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the appellant herein has already joined in Government Higher Secondary School, Vanaramutti, Tuticorin District and therefore, she should be disturbed. 4. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in Union of India and others ..Vs.. S.L. Abbas ( 1993 (4) S.C.C. 357 ) while considering the guideline requiring the husband and wife to be posted in the same station, of course has held that the said guideline is not mandatory, because for obvious reason the said guideline says that the same shall be followed as far as possible. But, in the instant case, the guideline issued by the Government in the matter of transfer of teachers, giving preference to the candidates within the district does not say that they shall have the priority as far as possible. Hence, the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that non-compliance of the instructions and guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.110 dated 18.08.2004 shall not be a ground to quash the order of transfer is rejected. 5. The second and third contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant that unless the impugned transfer order is quashed, the learned Single Judge ought not to have given consequential direction and the appellant has already joined in the transferred station failed in our considered view because the learned Single Judge, without disturbing the appellant herein in the middle of the academic year, permitted her to continue at Government Higher Secondary School, Vanaramutti, Tuticorin District till the end of this academic year and subsequent to the relieving of the appellant, directed the authorities to consider the request of the first respondent / writ petitioner. Therefore, for making such a direction, there is no need to quash the proceedings of the Chief Educational Officer / second respondent herein dated 08.10.2004 and the order has to be read in the context of the facts and circumstances of the case and also observations and directions given thereunder. Only to accommodate the appellant herein at Government Higher Secondary School, Vanaramutti, Tuticorin District till the end of the academic year, the impugned order of transfer was not quashed by the learned Single Judge. Only to accommodate the appellant herein at Government Higher Secondary School, Vanaramutti, Tuticorin District till the end of the academic year, the impugned order of transfer was not quashed by the learned Single Judge. That apart, merely because the appellant herein has already joined at Government Higher Secondary School, Vanaramutti, Tuticorin District, learned Single Judge has not chosen to disturb her in the middle of the academic year. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to contend that the learned Single Judge ought not to have given consequential direction without quashing the impugned proceedings. 6. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.02.2007 made in W.P (MD)No.3643 of 2004. 7. Accordingly, this writ appeal deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P(MD)No.2 of 2007 is also dismissed. 8. Under the above circumstances, we clarify that the order of transfer dated 08.10.2004 made by the Chief Educational Officer / the second respondent herein transferring the appellant herein from Government Higher Secondary School, Kalingappatti, Tirunelveli District to Government Higher Secondary School, Vanaramutti, Tuticorin District stands quashed as it violates G.O.Ms.No.110 School Education (E1) Department dated 18.08.2004. Since the academic year has already been over, in view of the dismissal of the writ appeal, the second respondent herein is directed to consider the request of the first respondent and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Mr. G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the appellant at this stage requested this Court to consider sympathetically the the case of the appellant to accommodate her in Tuticorin. If that be so, after giving preference to the first respondent herein, the request of the appellant may be considered by the authorities concerned.