Judgment :- 1. The petitioner seeks to direct the respondents to cancel the transfer order issued to the 4th respondent on 15.09.2011 posting her as Head Mistress of Panchayat Union Elementary School, Maragatta and allot the same to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a widow and maintaining her children who has met with an accident, was last working as an Head Mistress of Panchayat Union Primary School, Salivaram, Thally Union, Krishnagiri District. According to the petitioner, for the treatment of her children she is staying at Hosur Town, who earlier met with an accident. She was daily traveling to Salivaram, which is about 40 kms away from Hosur. Since the school is situated on the main road, very near to the bus stand she is able to walk to the school. After taking care of her children, she takes a bus and goes to school. The petitioner was due for transfer as she has completed four years in that school. The respondent department issued a circular on 09.09.2011 giving the details of Rules and Regulations to be followed in conducting general transfer of teachers. According to which, under clause 2(iii), 3 days before the counseling, the vacancy list must be struck on the notice board of the respondent offices. It must be uploaded in their website www.pallikalvi.in. Again in clause 3, it is specified that, there must be an application from the willing teachers. As per clause 6(i), priority must be given to widows and 6(v) Parents of handicapped or mentally retarded children. As per the guidelines, the petitioner had high priority for transfer. Coupled with these facts, the petitioner is much senior than the fourth respondent as she stands in 17th place, whereas the fourth respondent stands in 56th place. Further, the petitioner is more than 43 years old. With these background, when she applied for transfer as per the web list and as per the notice board, the first vacancy was mentioned as Panchayat Union Primary School, Maragatta, which was situated within 30 kms. From Hosur and which is also situated very near to the bus stand on the main road. So, the petitioner was under the fond hope of opting this school, being the first person who has opted for the usual counseling on the 17.09.2011. From Hosur and which is also situated very near to the bus stand on the main road. So, the petitioner was under the fond hope of opting this school, being the first person who has opted for the usual counseling on the 17.09.2011. To her shock and surprise, when she went for counseling, the name of Panchayat Union Primary School, Maragatta was missing. Eventhough, she objected on the date of counseling she was made to take the next available place, as Maragatta was not shown as a place available. Consequently, she took the second place namely the school at Gangadevanapalli. In order to accommodate the fourth respondent, after publication of the vacancy list on 13.09.2011, on 15.09.2011 transfer has been given to fourth respondent to Maragatta Panchayat Union Primary School and that is why the name of the said school has been removed and later on she has been relieved on 21.09.2011, stating that the transfer was effected on administrative grounds. After the publication of the vacancy, there is no need or necessity for transfer on administrative grounds and it has been specifically done to accommodate the fourth respondent, who is much below in the seniority list. Therefore, she has come forward with this writ petition, challenging the order of transfer on the ground that the fourth respondent has been wrongly accommodated. 3. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 has filed the counter, in which they would specifically agree that the petitioner was the first person in the list. At the same time they would only contend that they have every legal right to transfer any person on administrative grounds prior to counseling and that is before 15.09.2011, the fourth respondent was transferred on administrative grounds and thereafter she was relieved on 21.09.2011. Whereas the petitioner has voluntarily participated in the counseling on 17.09.2011, she has also opted for the place which she was given and merely because one place was removed subsequent to the publication in the web site, there is no embargo or bar to transfer anyone in between the publication and the counseling. Since she has participated in the counseling, when she was not estopped from raising this question, she could have objected it at that time itself. 4. Though the fourth respondent was duly served, she has not chosen to appear or engage any counsel. Since she has participated in the counseling, when she was not estopped from raising this question, she could have objected it at that time itself. 4. Though the fourth respondent was duly served, she has not chosen to appear or engage any counsel. Her name also is printed in the cause list for the past three hearings but none appeared and there is no representation. 5. Heard both sides and perused the materials produced on record. The original file was produced by the respondents before this Court and the same was verified. 6. By consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself has been taken up for final disposal. 7. The short point for consideration in this case is whether the respondents having published the places where vacancies existed, as per the regulations can transfer a person in between the publication and counseling, even on administrative grounds, thereby making one place as not optional place. Here is a case, in a general teachers’ transfer counseling certain rules and regulations have been very clearly framed. As per rules, the authorities have no necessarily publish the places which are available or vacant atleast three days prior to the counseling, so as to enable the participant to know the places, where they can opt for or choose. In this case, the counseling was decided to be held on 17.09.2011. As per rules, they have also published the list of places on 13.09.2011. The first place mentioned in the web site as well as in the list was Panchayat Union Primary School, Maragatta. But, as rightly pointed out, on 15.09.2011 the fourth respondent was given a transfer order to that particular place, on administrative grounds. It is now brought to the notice of this Court by the petitioner that the fourth respondent has worked in the last place only for 1½ years and she has also opted for that place. The fact remains that she has been transferred on administrative grounds on 15.09.2011, eventhough she has completed only 1½ years in the previous place. Since it was filled up on administrative grounds, that place was not available for counseling on 17.09.2011. Nodoubt the petitioner participated in the counseling on 17.09.2011. When she had participated there was no availability in that particular place and so she has to necessarily choose the next alternative place. Since it was filled up on administrative grounds, that place was not available for counseling on 17.09.2011. Nodoubt the petitioner participated in the counseling on 17.09.2011. When she had participated there was no availability in that particular place and so she has to necessarily choose the next alternative place. According to the petitioner, she even objected at the time of counseling. But, unfortunately, she has not submitted any letter or anything in writing to record her objection. According to the petitioner, there was only oral objection. Therefore, the respondents only submit that the petitioner was estopped from questioning. Before going to that question, whether the authorities can transfer any person in between the publication in the web site and before the counseling, has to be decided. In fact no reasoning at all given even in the counter, even a single line does appear, stating the reason for the administrative transfer. Nodoubt, administrative transfers can be done by the authorities at any point of time. But that should have taken place atleast one day prior to the publication. Having published the places, as per the regulations the petitioner is fully competent to be given top priority as she is a widow, has two children met with an accident, one of the child girl almost lost her leg and taking treatment, she is already traveling 40 kms., from her residence to the school and totally 80 kms. to and fro daily and she was No.1 in the list for selection of the places. 8. According to the petitioner, she would have only selected Maragatta for three reasons, (1) The school is situated on the main road; (2) It is only 30 kms., from Hosur where she is residing and (3) she need not walk much since the bus stand is very near the school. Whereas in the next available place, which is now given to her, is in a remote village situated 2 kms away from the main road, she has to walk from the main road as there is no proper bus facility. Whereas, in the school at Maragatta, there is bus facility near the school itself. 9. Whereas in the next available place, which is now given to her, is in a remote village situated 2 kms away from the main road, she has to walk from the main road as there is no proper bus facility. Whereas, in the school at Maragatta, there is bus facility near the school itself. 9. The crux of the matter is transfer on administrative grounds is made, so a particular place is removed from the list of vacant places on the date of counseling, that the alleged transfer has been done purely to accommodate the fourth respondent and unfortunately the fourth respondent even after receiving the notice has not chosen to come and appear before the Court. The counter merely states that on administrative grounds, the transfer is made. Why this decision is made on that particular point of time, namely, between 13.09.2011 and 15.09.2011 is not explained in the counter. Therefore, this Court has to necessarily take into consideration that the transfer made on 15.09.2011 is not on administrative grounds but only to accommodate the fourth respondent, so that the place will not be available during the counseling. Therefore, the petitioner is right in questioning the transfer on administrative grounds on that particular date. If the Maragatta place was available, necessarily the petitioner would have taken that. Since that place has been removed from the list, the petitioner is right in questioning and seeking for cancellation of the transfer order dated 15.09.2011 given to the fourth respondent and allot that place to the petitioner. 10. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and there will be a direction to the second respondent to cancel the order dated 15.09.2011 transferring the fourth respondent to the Panchayat Union Primary School, Maragatta and in turn to transfer the petitioner to that place and pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. Consequently, the connected M.P. is closed. No costs.