BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01/10/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P (MD) No.1404 of 2007 and M.P. (MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 T.Metilda Packiam ... Petitioner vs. 1.Director of School Education Chennai 2.District Educational Officer Tenkasi Tirunelveli District 3.Correspondent St.Michael's Girls Higher Secondary School Tenkasi Tirunelveli District ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings O.Mu.No.81921/D1(3)/2005 dated 01.12.2005 and the consequential order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.3850/A1/2005 dated 01.02.2006 and quash the same and direct the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner from 01.9.2004 in the cadre of Junior Grade Tamil Pandit up to 31.5.2006 and in the cadre of Tamil Pandit from 01.6.2006. !For petitioner ... Mr.S.Mani ^For Respondents 1 and 2 ... Mrs.V.Chellammal, Spl. GP :ORDER
I have heard the arguments of Mr.S.Mani, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mrs.V.Chellammal, learned Special Government Pleader
representing the respondents 1 and 2 and have perused the records.
2. In this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated
01.12.2005 passed by first respondent and communicated by the second respondent
vide order dated 01.02.2006.
3. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Grade Tamil Pandit in a
permanent vacancy on 26.9.2003 by the third respondent. The appointment was
for a period of five years as per the Government Order in G.O. Ms. No.125 School
Education Department dated 12.11.2003 in RC Fathima Middle School, Kamarajar
Salai, Madurai, she was to be paid consolidated salary of Rs.4000/- per month.
However, she was transferred to the third respondent School on 31.8.2004 as
both the Schools were run by the same Roman Catholic Church. The order of
transfer was given on 31.8.2004 and on the same day, she was relieved and joined
the third respondent School on 01.9.2004. When the papers were sent for
sanction of approval of transfer, the School was informed by the proceedings
dated 01.02.2006 passed by the second respondent referring to the order passed
by the first respondent dated 01.12.2005, declining to grant the request of
transfer. These two orders are impugned in the writ petition.
4. In the impugned order, the first respondent had referred to the G.O.
Ms. No.125 School Education Department dated 12.11.2003 stating that since
Junior Grade Graduate Teachers were appointed for five years on consolidated
pay, there is no scope for any transfer of the teachers and the same has not
been mentioned in the said G.O. It is contended by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the Government Order has no relevance with reference to the
order of transfer. It only relates to the mode and method of appointment and,
therefore, no inspiration can be taken from the G.O. and the service conditions
of the teachers are to be looked into elsewhere. It is also contended by the
learned counsel that since the third respondent School is being run by a
minority management, their right to administer the management of the School is
fully guaranteed by Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The
petitioner has no scope for challenging the transfer order issued by the
Management. Because of this, the petitioner’s entire future is in jeopardy.
It is also stated that when she was transferred on 31.8.2004 and joined in the
third respondent School, the same was entered in the Service Register of the
petitioner and approval was also granted by the Additional Assistant Elementary
Educational Officer, Madurai. A copy of the Service Register along with the
endorsement of the said Officer was also produced before this Court. The fact
of her joining in the third respondent School has also been endorsed in the
Service Register.
5. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, the only
ground taken was that the administrative control of the elementary schools were
taken away from the Director of School Education and it now vests with the
Directorate of Elementary Education from the year 1995. Therefore, no teacher
working in Elementary Schools can be transferred from the control of the
Director of Elementary School to any School coming under the control of the
Director of School Education unless both the Directors agree for such concept.
The source of power given in G. O. Ms. No.127 Education Department dated
12.11.2003 has no specific instructions for ordering transfer. While the
respondents are not disputing about the Management transferring the petitioner
from any School within the District, they are only concerned about the transfer
to a place outside the District. In the present case, the transfer is only
in the post providing of consolidated pay and no additional claim is made by the
teacher. The argument of administrative difficulties between the two
Directors has no relevance to the case on hand. So long as the power of
minority School Management regarding transfer of a teacher is guaranteed and the
teacher not having any objection over the transfer, there is no scope for the
respondents to plead about the administrative difficulties as if in the
transferred post, the petitioner has been given any higher status. Further,
the fact that the Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer had
approved the transfer was not taken note of by the authorities.
6. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is liable to
succeed. Accordingly, the writ petition shall stand allowed and the impugned
order stands quashed. The petitioner is directed to work in the third
respondent School. The respondents are directed to grant approval for the
post within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. If on account of the transfer of the petitioner from RC Fathima
Middle School, Kamarajar Salai, Madurai, there will be no scope for filling up
the post of by appointing a new teacher, the Department may decline to grant
approval for filling up the vacancy. But, however, on account of the
transfer of the petitioner to the new school, she is eligible for all wages and
other benefits as available to a transferred teacher. There will be no order
as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
gri
To
1.Director of School Education
Chennai
2.District Educational Officer
Tenkasi
Tirunelveli District