JUDGMENT
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. Principal of a Government Vocational Higher Secondary School has approached
this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India complaining that she had been
picked up for arbitrary transfer from G.V.H.S.S., Thodupuzha to Teachers Training
Institute, Muvattupuzha. She is deeply hurt and humiliated by the manner by which
she was transferred. She submitted some of the imputations made against her by the
Transferring Authority would lower her status and reputation among her students,
fellow teachers, staff and the general public. She was picked up for transfer during
the middle of the academic year, which according to her was due to extraneous reasons.
She has got only one year and five months to retire.
2. The Parent Teachers Association of the school after having come to know
that there was a move to transfer the petitioner on the basis of order dated 28.8.2001
submitted a detailed representation to the Minister for Education as well as to the
Director of Public Instruction. The Parent Teachers Association opposed the move
of transferring the petitioner. They had only good things to narrate about the principal.
A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the second respondent justifying the transfer
order dated 8.10.01. Learned Single Judge did not interfere with the order of transfer
and relegated the petitioner to file suitable representation before the Government.
Aggrieved by the same this appeal has been preferred.
3. The transfer order Ext. P2 was passed on the basis of Government letter
dated 28.8.2001 and 5.10.2001 therefore no purpose would be achieved by again
approaching the Government. In order to examine the reason for the transfer we
called for the Government files and perused the same. Files revealed that transfer
order was issued on the basis of a letter written by the School Protection Council. We
have also perused the letter written by the School Protection Council. Learned
Government Pleader submitted that since transfer was effected in public interest this
court under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not interfere with the order of transfer.
As a general proposition the learned Government Pleader is right. But if the Court is
convinced that the transfer order has been issued mala fide and due to extraneous
reasons this court under Article 226 of the Constitution has got a statutory duty to redress
the grievance of the petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed by second respondent
following charges have been levelled against the petitioner.
“The petitioner’s conduct as the Principal of Government Vocational Higher Secondary
School, Thodupuzha was unbecoming of the head of an institution and serious allegations were
made against her in relation to the constitution of Parent Teachers Association. Serious
allegations were also made against the petitioner in connection with misappropriation of funds
of the Parent Teachers Association of Government Vocational Higher Secondary School,
Thodupuzha. Due to the conduct of the petitioner, the Parent Teachers Association in
Government Vocational Higher Secondary School, Thodupuzha have been split into two groups
which made the functioning of the said association also undesirable. In the meantime a mass
petition from the School Protection Council of Vocational Higher Secondary School, Thodupuzha
was received by the Government alleging serious charges against the petitioner and taking note
of the seriousness in the allegations raised against the petitioner, the Government by order dated
5.10.2001 directed this respondent to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner, in relation to the
allegations raised against her and to transfer her and to conduct an independent enquiry
in the matter.”
Affidavit has been filed by the Personal Assistant (General) Office of the Director of
Public Instruction, Trivandrum. When the matter came up for hearing we directed the
learned Additional Advocate General to explain under what circumstances and on
what materials the averments have been made in the affidavit. Allegations are of
serious nature. Counter affidavit stated that petitioner had misappropriated funds of
the Parent Teachers Association. Due to the conduct of the petitioner the Parent
Teachers Association have been split up into two groups which made the functioning
of the said association undesirable. Learned Addl. Advocate General could not produce
any materials based on which the above counter affidavit has been filed.
4. In the meantime an impleading petition was filed by the Parent Teachers
Association before this Court. Counsel appearing for the Parent Teachers Association
Sri. Sunil Jacob Jose as well as counsel appearing for the writ petitioner strongly
refuted the various allegations made in the counter affidavit. According to them there
is absolutely no materials to impute those allegations. Counsel appearing for the
President of the P.T.A. submitted that the Principal had not misappropriated any of
the funds of Parent Teachers Association and had never tried to interfere with the
activities of the Association on because of her conduct there was no split in the
association. President of the Parent Teachers Association in the affidavit stated as follows:
“The G.V.H.S.S. was suffering a very bad name for the past several years in the field of
education and other activities. The predecessor of the appellant was able to regain the lost glory
of the school due to his efficient administration and co-operation from the staff and earlier P.T.A.
The appellant took over as Principal of the School on 20.5.1999 and was able to continue the same
attitude to maintain the standards achieved. During the SSLC exams of the year 1993 the school
had 0% pass, mainly due to the mismanagement and the unwanted interference of the local
politicians. The appellant was able to bring the pass percentage in SSLC exams to 45% and 94%
in V.H.S. Section. Student strength was also increased in the V.H.S.S. The school was also placed
1st among the Govt. Schools in the Idukki District. It is further submitted that it was for the first
time after the appellant took over as the Principal of the School, she was able in inculcate discipline
and dedication in the students….. the functioning of the Parent Teach
Association of the School was handed over to the petitioner by her predecessor inducting life
into it and the Principal has been running the school in the most effective manner with full co-operation
of the students, staff and Parent Teachers Association….. There never arose
any complaint regarding its constitution or its running nor the handling of the funds were
complained off till date. The allegation that the PTA has been split into 2 group is incorrect. There
exists no groupism in the P.T.A. As a matter of fact, it is the smooth functioning of the P.T.A.
as one that helped the appellant to regain the lost glory of the school”.
Faced with the above situation as well as the stand of the P.T.A. the Personal Assistant
(General), Office of the Director of Public Instruction, Trivandrum filed an affidavit
stating as follows:
“It is submitted that during the hearing of Writ Appeal No. 3797/2001 of 26.11.2001, this
Hon’ble Court was pleased to express displeasure regarding certain statements made in
Paragraph 3 of the Counter Affidavit sworn to by me in O.P.No. 30445/2001. Accordingly this
Hon’ble Court was pleased to afford me an opportunity for tendering my unconditional apology
in making the above statements in the Counter Affidavit. I sincerely express my regret in making
allegations of misappropriation against the appellant herein with regard to the PTA funds and
the properties owned by the School. The said statements were made on account of my oversight
and it was never intended to harm the appellant or distort the versions before this Hon’ble Court.
I hereby tender my unconditional apology in making the said statements in paragraph 3 of the
Counter Affidavit filed in O.P.No. 30445/2001. It is further submitted accepting my unconditional
apology, the further proceedings in the matter may kindly be dropped”.
Along with the affidavit he has also produced an order dated 26.11.01 retransferring
the petitioner back as Principal of the G.V.H.S.S., Thodupuzha. After considering all
facts and circumstances of the case and perusing the unconditional apology submitted
by the Personal Assistant of the Office of the Director of Public Instructions we are
dropping further proceedings as against him.
5. We may add types of statements made in the counter affidavit are
capable of creating reasonable apprehension in the minds of the court that the order
has been issued not on objective consideration but on invisible yet apparent pressure
from extraneous source. When an affidavit is filed in the court of law there is a
solemn affirmation that the facts contained in the affidavit to the best of knowledge
information and belief are true. If the facts stated in the affidavit are questioned the
person who has sworn the solemn affirmation and signed the affidavit has got legal
obligation to disclose the source of information and belief. Before making a solemn
affirmation before court he has got an obligation to examine the veracity or otherwise
of the facts which are brought to his knowledge directly or indirectly. If reckless and
unwanted allegations are made in the affidavit the person who swears the affidavit
will have to do it at the risk of action for perjury. There is a difference between the
solemn affirmation and an affidavit. When a person solemnly affirm as the statement
made in the petition stating they are true to his knowledge and belief he should be able
to prove the source of his knowledge and belief. In the instant case we have asked to
disclose his source of information. The Government Official could not disclose it.
Consequently he had to tender apology.
6. We are of the view Government Official should be careful when making
solemn affidavit before this Court. His duty is to aid this Court in the dispensation of
justice, disclosing true facts before the Court. We find that the transfer has been
effected on the basis of complaint from “School Protection Council”. We fail to see
what is the status of the School Protection Council. Only the P.T.A. has been recognised
by Government through its circular and executive orders. We are sorry to say,
Government acted arbitrarily on the basis of the complaint filed by the School Protection
Council and transferred the Principal. Since authorities have cancelled the transfer
order we are dropping further proceedings. We further make it clear that the period
for which petitioner was not on duty be treated as eligible leave and service be
regularised accordingly.