Judgment :- 1. Heard the arguments of Mrs. R. Gouri, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. A. Suresh, learned Government Advocate (Education) appearing for the Respondents. 2. The Petitioner, who was employed as Headmistress at the Government Higher Secondary School, Pannimadai, Coimbatore District, has come forward to challenge an order of transferring her from that School to the Government Higher Secondary School, Oveli, Nilgiris District on administrative grounds vide impugned order, dated 28.1.2011. 3. The ground of challenge made by the Petitioner was that transfer was punitive. It has been made to facilitate some other person. Since it has been based on some allegations made against her, it was by way of penalty. The Petitioner has aged mother. Her father-in-law who is very old requires treatment. The Petitioner herself was 54 years old. Therefore, she should not be transfer just few years before her retirement. Further, the present order of transfer was made during the middle of the academic year and it should not be entertained. 4. When the matter came up on 10.2.2011, this Court directed notice to be served on the other side. Accordingly, on notice the Second Respondent Director of School Education has filed a Counter Affidavit, dated 15.3.2011 in the Counter Affidavit, it is admitted that Complaints have been received against the Petitioner. An enquiry was conducted by the Chief Educational Officer, Coimbatore on 25.11.2010. On the basis of the detailed report received from him, prima facie certain lapses were found. On account of these allegations, it was decided that the Petitioner cannot be detained in the said School. With a view to maintain normal atmosphere, she was transferred to a School in the neighboring District. It is also stated that the transfer cannot be interfered with on grounds raised by the Petitioner. 5. In order to verify the veracity of the allegations made by the Petitioner, this Court directed the original file to be produced. No doubt, there were allegations made against the Petitioner, which had not been finalized. It was also proposed to take disciplinary action against the Petitioner. In any event, so long as the order of transfer did not contain any reference to the proposed action and it is based on administrative grounds, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. There are no mala fide against the Second Respondent who had taken into account all relevant circumstances. In any event, so long as the order of transfer did not contain any reference to the proposed action and it is based on administrative grounds, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. There are no mala fide against the Second Respondent who had taken into account all relevant circumstances. The allegation that it was made during the academic year is irrelevant in considering the present type of transfer order. Further the personal difficulties of the Petitioner need not weigh with the Respondents as it is not a routine transfer. 6. In this context, the Respondents have referred to a Judgment of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Siya Ram, 2004 (7) SCC 405 . In paragraph 5, the Supreme Court had observed as follows: “5. The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India had gone into the question as to whether the transfer was in the interest of public service. That would essentially require factual adjudication and invariably depend upon peculiar facts and circumstances of the case concerned. No Government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were Appellate Authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. This position was highlighted by this Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan.” 7. When this Court expressed its intention not interfered with the order of transfer, Mrs. This position was highlighted by this Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan.” 7. When this Court expressed its intention not interfered with the order of transfer, Mrs. Gouri, learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Director of School Education, Madras and others v. O. Karuppa Thevan and another, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 666 and requested that she should be at least retained till the end of the academic year as was done in that case. 8. However, it is found from the records that though the Petitioner claimed that she had not handed over the charge, but on being proceeded to go on leave, the charge was taken by the senior most teacher and that a person who has been transferred in her place Mr. Manoharan had come and taken the charge from the senior teacher. He has been functioning in that School since then. Therefore, even the limited prayer that she should be allowed to continue till the end of the academic year also is not feasible for compliance. Since the Petitioner herself has gone on leave, it is for her to extend her leave to which she is eligible and thereafter to join the new place. On that ground this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of transfer. Hence, the Writ Petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed.