Judgment : 1. I started hearing this case on 15.07.2014 (that day the Advocates were on court boycott). I found the petitioner – a woman and a school teacher – appearing before me with the folded case bundle in her hands like the anklet in the hands of “Kannagi” - the heroine of Silapathikaram, one of the five great epics of Tamil Literature, her eyes filled with tears; she declared in a meek voice, “I have a complaint, where can I go except coming to this Court which has a tradition of justice? Uphold justice and undo the grave injustice done to me. I have been suffering for the past two years.” She placed point after point, like an experienced Advocate, exposing the injustice caused to her. I was amazed. I consoled her and advised her to be bold to fight against any injustice. The case was adjourned at the request of the learned Government Advocate to get further instructions from the respondents. I was extremely happy that the people, more particularly the common man, have immense faith in the judiciary. The appearance of the petitioner in person seeking justice and the narration of her woes and sufferings is a caution to all the stakeholders in the justice delivery system that “Fail not to do timely justice.” 2. Today, again she appeared. Her grievances are as follows : The petitioner is presently working as B.T.Assistant in Mathematics Subject at Government High School, Puluthipatti in Sivagangai District. Her native place is Madurai District. Stating certain genuine reasons, the petitioner submitted an application on 26.04.2012 seeking transfer to any one of the schools in Madurai District. The said application was entertained and she was permitted to participate in the transfer counselling conducted by the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, on 24.07.2012. The petitioner had chosen the post of B.T.Assistant in Mathematics Subject at Government High School at Tiruppalai in Madurai District. The 7th respondent was previously working in Sevalpatti Government High School, Trichy District. She also participated in the transfer counselling. Since the petitioner being the senior, opted the post at Government High School, Tiruppalai, Madurai District. It was accepted by the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai and accordingly he issued an order of transfer, to the petitioner, transferring her to Government High School at Tiruppalai, as per order in Na.Ka.No.4938/A4/2012, dated 24.07.2012. 3. She also participated in the transfer counselling. Since the petitioner being the senior, opted the post at Government High School, Tiruppalai, Madurai District. It was accepted by the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai and accordingly he issued an order of transfer, to the petitioner, transferring her to Government High School at Tiruppalai, as per order in Na.Ka.No.4938/A4/2012, dated 24.07.2012. 3. Having armed with the said order, when the petitioner approached the Headmaster of the Government High School at Puluthipatti, Sivagangai District, the petitioner was informed that there was no instruction to relieve her. When she approached the Chief Educational Officer, Sivagangai District, she was informed that from the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai District, the order of transfer dated 24.07.2012, had not been received. As a result, the petitioner was not relieved from Sivagangai District so as to enable her to join duty at the Government High School at Tiruppalai in Madurai District. 4. While so, the Joint Director (Personnel), School Education Department, Chennai-6, by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.32714/C3/E2/2012, dated 02.08.2012, transferred the 7th respondent from Government High School at Sevalpatti, Tiruchirappalli District, to the Government High School at Tiruppalai in Madurai District, as against the vacancy against which the petitioner had earlier been transferred in the transfer counselling. Armed with the said order of the Joint Director, the 7th respondent approached the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai and the other officials and wanted to join duty as B.T.Assistant in Mathematics in Government High School at Tiruppalai. On knowing this, the petitioner raised objection in person. She also sent telegrams and representations to various authorities. But, the same were not considered. Instead, the 7th respondent was permitted to join duty at the Government High School at Tiruppalai, as a result, the petitioner was neither relieved from the Sivagangai District nor allowed to join duty at Tiruppalai Government High School in Madurai District. She was, thus, forced to continue to work in the Government High School at Puluthipatti in Sivagangai District. Since all her efforts, by means of a number of representations to the higher authorities, proved futile, she was forced to file the present writ petition on 05.12.2012. 5. When this writ petition came up for hearing on 07.12.2012, the learned Additional Government Pleader took notice for the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 and 6. The petitioner was directed to take out notice to the 7th respondent. Accordingly, notice was take. 5. When this writ petition came up for hearing on 07.12.2012, the learned Additional Government Pleader took notice for the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 and 6. The petitioner was directed to take out notice to the 7th respondent. Accordingly, notice was take. On 05.07.2013, the writ petition was admitted by this Court. Thereafter, the writ petition came-up for hearing atleast for 10 hearings, on various dates. 6. The 3rd respondent has filed counter on 02.01.2013. In the counter, the 3rd respondent has virtually blamed the petitioner for not having reported for duty in the Government High School at Tiruppalai. The crux of the counter is that it is true that the petitioner participated in the transfer counselling and accordingly transfer order was issued by the 3rd respondent as early as on 24.07.2012 itself, transferring her to the 6th respondent school. But, the petitioner did not join at the transferred school till 22.08.2012, i.e. for about 29 days. The counter further proceeds to state as follows: “In normal practice the person who has been issued with the transfer order should join to the concerned post within a week as per prevailing rules and conditions. If the concerned person has not joined to the transfer post within the time, he should intimate the same with the authorities concerned. But the petitioner miserably failed to send any intimation to the officials regarding the delay in joining the post at the 6th respondent school. .... IN the meanwhile the 7th respondent who was working as B.T.Assistant (Mathematics) at Government Higher Secondary School, Sevalpatti, Trichy District, had approached the 6th respondent school with a transfer order as well as the relieving order and therefore she was allowed to join.” 7. The 7th respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that narrating the family circumstances, she approached the Joint Director with a request and considering her case the Joint Director had issued the transfer order. Therefore, the 7th respondent has tried to justify her transfer to the Government High School at Tiruppalai in Madurai District. 8. I have considered the above. In my considered opinion, the counter of the 3rd respondent, I should say, with regret, is so reckless and highly misleading. It is not as though the petitioner was responsible for not reporting for duty at the transferred place. 8. I have considered the above. In my considered opinion, the counter of the 3rd respondent, I should say, with regret, is so reckless and highly misleading. It is not as though the petitioner was responsible for not reporting for duty at the transferred place. It is also not as though the petitioner did not intimate the higher authorities that she was not relieved by the School Headmaster where she was working. The fact remains that she was not relieved by the Headmaster of Puluthipatti Government High School in Sivagangai District, for which petitioner cannot be blamed. Even now there is no explanation offered as to why the transfer order issued to the petitioner was not duly intimated by the third respondent to the Chief Educational Officer, Sivagangai District and the Headmaster of the Government High School at Puluthipatti. I am sure, had it been intimated, certainly, the Headmaster of the Government High School at Puluthipatti would have relieved her so as to enable her to report for duty at the Government High School at Tiruppalai. It was because of the fact that the order was not communicated, the petitioner was not relieved and as a result she was not able to report for duty. But, to the contrary, the petitioner is now blamed in the counter of the 3rd respondent, which really deserves to be condemned. 9. Apart from that, the order dated 24.07.2012, issued by the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, transferring the petitioner to the Government High School at Tiruppalai was not all cancelled. The moment the said transfer order, dated 24.07.2012, was passed, the post of B.T.Assistant (Mathematics) in the Government High School at Tiruppalai, was no more vacant. When that be so, it is really surprising rather shocking that the then Joint Director had transferred the 7th respondent to the Government High School at Tiruppalai. A reading of the order passed by the Joint Director would go to show that the Joint Director had no back file to transfer the 7th respondent. There is no reference also in the order as to whether the same was made at the request of the 7th respondent or on any administrative grounds. A reading of the order passed by the Joint Director would go to show that the Joint Director had no back file to transfer the 7th respondent. There is no reference also in the order as to whether the same was made at the request of the 7th respondent or on any administrative grounds. The order further states that the 7th respondent should be immediately relieved from the Government High School at Sevalpatti but, she should be allowed to report for duty at the Government High School at Tiruppalai provided there was vacancy. This would only go to show that the then Joint Director was not even aware of whether there was vacancy in the Government High School at Tiruppalai or not. It is very strange that the Joint Director, without even ascertaining as to whether there was any vacancy at the Government High School at Tiruppalai and without even verifying whether the said vacancy had been filled-up by means of transfer counselling, has passed the order dated 02.08.2012, transferring the 7th respondent to the 6th respondent school, in an arbitrary manner. The 7th respondent, who was not able to succeed in the transfer counselling has managed to get this transfer order dated 02.08.2012, issued by the Joint Director. It is not explained to me as to how the Joint Director could pass an order of transfer when the vacancy had already been filled-up by the transfer counselling and without even knowing the factual situation. It is because of this transfer order, the petitioner has been put to turmoil and therefore the blame now thown upon her in the counter is totally baseless and the same deserves to be deprecated. The fact remains that the transfer ordered issued to the petitioner is still in force. However, the 7th respondent has been allowed to join duty. 10. When this writ petition came up for earing on 15.07.2014, the petitioner, who appeared in person, projected her case expressing her agonies. The present Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, was also present in Court. When he was questioned in the open Court as to how the Joint Director could pass an order of transfer when the post had already been filled-up by means of transfer counselling, by transferring the petitioner, he assured the Court that he would get instruction from the Joint Director and report the matter to this Court, today. 11. When he was questioned in the open Court as to how the Joint Director could pass an order of transfer when the post had already been filled-up by means of transfer counselling, by transferring the petitioner, he assured the Court that he would get instruction from the Joint Director and report the matter to this Court, today. 11. Today, when the matter was taken up, the petitioner was present in person. She was not represented by her counsel, as today also Court Boycott by the Advocates is going on. The present Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, is also present. However there is no representation for the 7th respondent and therefore I am not able to hear the stand of the 7th respondent. 12. Today, the learned Special Government Pleader Mr. V.R. Shanmuganathan, representing the respondents 1 to 6, would submit that the present Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, has by his proceedings Na.Ka.No.14328/A3/2012, dated 15.07.2014,transferred the petitioner to the Government High School at Tiruppalai in Madurai District in tune with the earlier order of transfer. He would further submit that the 7th respondent, who has been all along allowed to work as B.T.Assistant in Mathematics in the Government High School at Tiruppalai has now been transferred to the Government Higher Secondary School in Kulamangalam in Madurai, by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.14328/A3/2012, dated 15.07.2014. The Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, who is present in the Court would submit that the 7th respondent has agreed for this transfer and she has got no grievance regarding her transfer to the Government Higher Secondary School at Kulamangalam. 13. The petitioner, who is present in person, would submit that she would get relieved from the Government High School at Puluthipatti in Sivagangai District within two days and join duty at the Government High School at Tiruppalai in Madurai District, within next two days. The said statement is recorded. In view of the above, no further adjudication is required. Thus, the petitioner has succeeded in her fight for justice. I am only hopeful that this kind of injustice would not be caused to anyone in future by these officials. 14. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.