BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26/02/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN W.P.(MD)No.5106 of 2009 and W.P.(MD)No.5107 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2009 R.Y.Sudhakar ... Petitioner in W.P.No.5106/09 S.Pushpam Sudhakar ... Petitioner in W.P.No.5107/09 Vs 1.The Inspector of Matriculation School, Virudhunagar. 2.The Chairman, South India Union of Seventh-Day Adventists, Board of Education, 197 GST Road, Vandalur, Chennai-48. 3.S.Sundar Singh, Zonal Educational Officer, Seventh-Day Adventists, T-62, Ellis Nagar, Madurai-10. 4.The Principal, P.S.Thambakarnar Memorial Seventh-Day Adventist Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Mallanginar Road, Virudhunagar-626 001. ... Respondents in both W.P.
Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.5106 of 2009
Writ Petition has been filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned
Transfer Order passed by the second respondent, dated 15.05.2009 and quash the
same and consequent direction to the 2nd respondent permitting the petitioner to
work in the 4th respondent school.
Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.5107 of 2009
Writ Petition has been filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned
Transfer order passed by the second respondent, dated 15.05.2009 and quash the
same and consequent direction to the 2nd respondent permitting the petitioner to
work in the 4th respondent school.
!For petitioner in Both W.Ps. ... M/s.Raj & Pathy
^For 1st Respondent ... Mr.M.Rajarajan
Government Advocate
For R2 to R4 ... Mr.T.Vadivelan
:COMMON ORDER
Heard both sides.
2.These two writ petitions are filed by the petitioners, who are the
husband and wife, challenged the order of transfer by which they were
transferred from SDA School, Virudhunagar to SDA School, Kalpakkam. as Teacher.
The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.5106 of 2009 has stated that he was appointed
on 12.06.1979 as teacher in the Seventh-Day Adventist Matriculation Higher
Secondary School at Thanjavur, which is run by the 2nd respondent and he was
transferred to various schools in Tamil Nadu, which are run by the 2nd
respondent and in the year 2003, he was transferred to the 4th respondent school
at Virudhungar.
3.According to him, he made some allegations against the Principal of the
school that the Principal in connivance with the 3rd respondent, indulging in
malpractices in the administration of the school and therefore, the 3rd
respondent and the Principal of the school have got grudge against him and at
the instance of the 3rd respondent, he was placed under suspension, by order,
dated 27.02.2007 and the order of suspension was quashed by this Court in
W.P.(MD)No.2260 of 2007.
4.It is further stated that in May 2008, he sustained injury in the right
Knee and as a result, an artificial limb was fitted in the right Knee and he was
allowed to join the duty on 05.01.2009 and the 3rd respondent insisted the
petitioner to go on voluntary retirement and due to hostile attitude of the
Principal and the 3rd respondent towards him, the petitioner was transferred to
SDA School, Kalpakkam, and the transfer order is a non-speaking order and
therefore, it is liable to be quashed.
5.The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.5107 of 2009 is the wife of the petitioner
in W.P.(MD)No.5106 of 2009 and she also stated that she is working as teacher in
the Seventh Day Adventist Matriculation High Secondary School, Virudhunagar, run
by the 2nd respondent and she was also transferred along with her husband to the
4th respondent school as they had made some allegations against the 3rd
respondent about the irregularities committed by him and therefore, the 3rd
respondent has got grudge against her husband and at his instance, she and her
husband were transferred to Kalpakkam school and the said transfer order is
against the provisions of the Code of Regulation for Matriculation School and
the transfer order is a mala-fide one and is liable to be set aside.
6.The respondents 2 to 4 filed a common counter wherein they denied the
allegations of mala-fide and it is stated that the petitioners were transferred
to various schools for the past 23 years and there was no complaint made by them
and not only the petitioners, but also the other teachers were transferred to
other schools and it is a routine transfer. It is further stated that the 2nd
respondent is having schools all over Tamil Nadu and the teachers are
transferred to various schools due to administrative reasons and in a normal
course, the petitioners were transferred to Kalpakkam school and the petitioners
after relieved from Virudhunagar SDA school went to Kalpakkam SDA School and met
the Principal of that school on 01.06.2009 and expressed their wiliness to join
in that school. Further, the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.5107 of 2009 also
received a sum of Rs.10,000/- as advance from the Principal of Kalpakkam school
for shifting their household things to Kalpakkam and after receiving the amount,
these writ petitions were filed.
7.It is further stated that the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.5106 of 2009 was
also paid his all allowances, while he was relieved from the school at
Viruidhunagar and he received a total sum of Rs.51,205/- and he also received
advance of Rs.10,000/- from the Kalpakkam school for shifting his household
article and therefore, it cannot be stated due to mala-fide reasons, the
petitioners were transferred. It is further stated that in the place of the
Petitioners, Mrs.S.Jeeva Christy and Mrs.S.Deepalakshmi were appointed and even
before getting the stay order from this court, the petitioners were relieved and
the order of transfer is a routine one made on administrative grounds.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied upon the
judgement reported in 2003(4) CTC 65 in the case of The Manger, R.C. Schools,
Salem Social Services Society, Alagapuram, Salem and another vs. G.Vicent
Paulraj and another and 2007(1) MLJ 463 in the case of Y.Balachandra Babu and
another vs. District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai Educational District and
Marthandam, Kanyakumari District & others, in support of their contention.
9.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by both
the counsels.
10.It is admitted by the petitioners that the 2nd respondent is running
various schools at various places in Tamil Nadu and in the past, the petitioners
were also transferred to various schools. Therefore, when the management is
having various schools and teachers are transferred from one school to another
school in the same management, the transfer is an incident of service and the
same cannot be challenged, unless some mala-fide is attributed against the
management or the transfer order is punitive in nature. It is seen from the
order that the transfer orders are purely simple transfer and the transfer
orders were issued on administrative grounds. It is also well settled that when
the transfers are made on administrative grounds, there is no need to give any
reason. In this case also, no reason was stated for transferring the
petitioners and therefore, it cannot be stated that the order of transfer is
vitiated by malafide or is a punitive transfer.
11.It is contented by the learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioners that the petitioner in W.P,(MD)No.5106 of 2009 had made allegations
against the 3rd respondent and therefore, the 3rd respondent has got grudge
against the petitioners and to settle his score against the petitioners and at
his instance, the petitioner and his wife were transferred. When allegations
are made attributing mala-fide against the person in management, it is the duty
of the person, who is making such allegations to prove the same. In this case,
except the allegations made in the affidavit, the petitioners are not able to
prove or substantiate the said charges against the 3rd respondent.
12.Further, it is stated by the respondents 2 to 4 that not only the
petitioners, but other teachers were also transferred along-with the petitioners
and that would also prove that the petitioners were not singled out and it is
seen from the typed set of papers that along-with the petitioners six other
teachers were transferred to various schools.
13.It has been held in the judgment reported in 2003(4) CTC 65, in the
case of The Manger, R.C. Schools, Salem Social Services Society, Alagapuram,
Salem and another vs. G.Vicent Paulraj and another, when the management is
running various schools in various places and teachers were transferred from one
school to another under the same management, the same cannot be questioned.
14.As stated supra, in this case, it is admitted that the petitioners were
transferred in the past and they are working in the school from 2003 onward and
hence, the management though it fit to transfer the petitioners to their school
at Kalpakkam, Further, by reason of the transfer order, it is not stated that
the petitioners’ service condition are affected and unless, the transfer is
expressly barred by service conditions, the petitioners are not entitled to
challenge the same,
15.In the judgment reported in 2007(1) MLJ 463, in the case of
Y.Balachandra Babu and another vs. District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai
Educational District and Marthandam, Kanyakumari District & others, it has been
held that under provision of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools
(Regulations) Act, the corporate body running more than one school should be
treated as one unit for the purpose of the Rule relating to qualifications,
conditions of service of teachers and other persons employed in the aided
private schools and therefore, the order is not against the provision of the
Act. The same analogy can be applied to the 2nd respondent school as
admittedly, the 2nd respondent is running various schools and in the past, the
petitioners were transferred. Therefore, in my view, no reason has been stated
by the petitioners questioning the order of the transfer and the transfer order
is not passed by way of of punishment and it is only a routine transfer made in
the course of service and the same cannot be challenged.
16.Hence, the order of transfer passed by the 2nd respondent is upheld
and accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
er
To
1.The Inspector of Matriculation School,
Virudhunagar.
2.The Chairman,
South India Union of Seventh-Day Adventists,
Board of Education,
197 GST Road,
Vandalur,
Chennai-48.
3.S.Sundar Singh,
Zonal Educational Officer,
Seventh-Day Adventists,
T-62, Ellis Nagar,
Madurai-10.
4.The Principal,
P.S.Thambakarnar Memorial
Seventh-Day Adventist Matriculation
Higher Secondary School,
Mallanginar Road,
Virudhunagar-626 001.
5.The Government Advocate,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.