High Court Madras High Court

S.Pitchai Arockiyam vs District Elementary Educational … on 13 April, 2006

Madras High Court
S.Pitchai Arockiyam vs District Elementary Educational … on 13 April, 2006
       

  

  

 
 
 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT


DATED: 13/04/2006


CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.E.N.PATRUDU


W.P.No.1646 of 2004
and
WPMP.No.1654 of 2004



$S.Pitchai Arockiyam			... 	Petitioner


Vs.


1.District Elementary Educational Officer,
  Karur District alias Karur.

2.Additional Assistant Elementary
  Educational Officer,
  Kadavoor Panchayat union alias Tharagampatty,
  Karur Disrict.
					... 	Respondents


PRAYER


Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for the
records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent dated 10.09.2004
in Na.Ka.m4/2266/04 and quash the same.


!For Petitioner   	...	Mr.N.Sathish babu


^For Respondents     	...	No appearance
					

					
:ORDER

The petitioner is aged about 50 years. At the time of filing the
writ petition, the petitioner was working as a Head Master in the Panchayat
Union Elementary School at Nariyampatty. The grievance of the petitioner is
that he was transferred from Panchayat Union Elementary School, Nariampatty to
the Panchayat Union Elementary School at Kudi Vaandai Manpathaiyoor in Karur
District by the respondents through the impugned order on the ground that the
transfer is made for administrative reasons.

2.Mr.N.Sathish Babu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner contended that the authorities did not disclose the reasons for
transfer except stating that the transfer is on administrative grounds, and that
as per G.O.Ms.No.110 dated 18.08.2004, they are supposed to disclose the reasons
for such transfer even though on administrative grounds. Apart from that, he
further submits that the wife of the petitioner is also working at the same
place and transfer of the petitioner in the middle of the academic year is not
only disturbing the family life of the petitioner but also the education and
livelihood of the children. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that
the transfer is motivated and without any valid grounds.

3.No representation on behalf of the respondents. Neither respondents nor
the Government counsel appeared today. On verification of the records, they did
not file any counter till today. That shows that the respondents have no
interest in the matter. Therefore, this Court heard the arguments of the
counsel for the petitioner and disposed the writ petition on merits.

4.Clause 4(i) of G.O.Ms.No.110 dated 18.08.2004 says that whenever a
spouse is working at a particular place, the other spouse shall normally be
permitted to work at the same place. The priority in the case of the employed
spouse is applicable only to employees working in Central, State Government
Offices, Government and Aided Schools and Government Public Sector undertakings.

5.In the instant case, on behalf of the petitioner across the Bench, it is
submitted that the wife of the petitioner is working at the same place, inspite
of that the respondent has decided to shift the petitioner. Apart from that,
the annexure in the G.O. in case (iv) reads as follows:

“Administrative transfers will be made only when complaints have been
enquired into by the competent authority and when the disciplinary action is
proposed to be taken on prima facie evidence. The reason for the administrative
transfer are to be recorded in the relevant file”.

6.Thus whenever the authorities initiate proceedings to transfer an
employee, the employee should know the grounds for such transfer. Otherwise, he
will be kept in dark and the sweet will and pleasure of the higher authorities
in transfer without assigning reasons for the transfer is bad in law. This is
not a case of general transfer. Therefore the authorities should mention the
necessary reasons for transfer more so when the G.O. referred above mandate for
it. But, in the impugned order, such reasons are not assigned.

7.For the above reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned
order is set aside. No costs. Consequently, the connected WPMP is closed.

Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No

To

1.District Elementary Educational Officer,
Karur District @ Karur.

2.Additional Assistant Elementary
Educational Officer,
Kadavoor Panchayat union @ Tharagampatty,
Karur Disrict.