Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1751 (MAD)

S. Raj Kumar v. Commissioner

2012-04-04

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is working as Secondary Grade Teacher in Government Adidravidar Welfare Higher Secondary School at Singanoor, Dindivanam Taluk. The petitioner, being qualified to be appointed as B.T. Assistant (History), was promoted as Post Graduate Assistant (History) against available vacancy and transferred to Thanjavur District. It was due to family circumstances, that the petitioner was not able to join duty as B.T.Assistant, and made request to the respondents to appoint him as B.T. Assistant (History) in Adidravidar Welfare Higher Secondary School, where the petitioner was working. 2. The respondents did not accept the request of petitioner, and appointed Mr.A.Palani / 4th respondent, as B.T. Assistant (History) from Sivagangai District. 3. The submission of petitioner is that as the vacancy was available in the same school and the seniority position of petitioner was No.13, he was entitled to be promoted as B.T.Assistant (History) in the same school. 4. The petitioner challenged the order of appointment of respondent no.4 in Government Adidravidar Welfare Higher Secondary School, being illegal and arbitrary and violative of G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 11.07.2001. 5. The ground of challenge is that as per Government Order, teachers working at Adidravidar Welfare Higher Secondary School, can only be transferred by counselling under single window system. But in the case of petitioner, this right was denied to petitioner. 6. It is also case of petitioner that as per Government Order, transfer could be to the same Taluk only. 7. G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 11.07.2001, on which reliance is placed, is only a guideline to regulate transfer, which does not give any enforceable right to an employee to come to the Court. 8. The petitioner also cannot have any grievance to the appointment of respondent no.4, as admittedly petitioner was offered promotion as B.T. Assistant, and he himself chose not to accept the promotion, as he did not want to shift from the school, where he was working. The employee cannot dictate the terms as to where he is to be posted or transferred on promotion. 9. The employee cannot dictate the terms as to where he is to be posted or transferred on promotion. 9. The appointment by transfer of an employee cannot be questioned on the ground, that the transfer is in violation of guidelines, as the guidelines issued regarding transfer are only instructions for guidance of the authorities, which do not give any right to challenge the transfer if ordered in violation of guidelines, as transfer is incident of service and can only be questioned on the ground of malafide or in case it is in violation of the statutory service conditions. 10. No merits. Dismissed. No costs.