Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 2839
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
M. JAICHANDREN & R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
The Bishop, C.S.I. Tiruchirapalli & Others
Versus
C. Jane Margret & Others
W.A. (MD) Nos. 917 of 2014 & 978 of 2014 & M.P (MD) Nos. 1 & 1 of 2014
Decided on: 28-08-2014
For the Appearing Parties: Veera Kathiravan, A. Immanuel, A.K. Baskarapandian, Special Govt. Pleader.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authority to transfer teachers from one institution to another lies with the first respondent and that the transfer of the writ petitioner was not punitive but was based on administrative grounds.
Headnote:
Transfer - Teacher Transfer - Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1974 - 1974 Act, Sec. 15 - The Correspondent, Malankara Syrian Catholic School, Marthandam v. Eabinson Jacob 1998 (3) MLJ 595 - The Correspondent, Malankara Syrian Catholic School, Marthandam v. Rabinson Jacob 1998 (3) MLJ 595 - The finding of the learned Judge in coming to the conclusion that the first respondent is having every authority to transfer the teachers from institution to another, is sustainable in law and needs no interference by us. Insofar as the issue regarding the transfer as a punitive measure, the learned Judge placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India 2009 (2) SCC 592 and held that no order of transfer which was made as a punishment, is sustainable and thereby, quashed the impugned order of transfer stating that it came to be in existence not on the basis of administrative exigency, but, only as a punitive one. On consideration of the materials available before us, we are of the view that the transfer of the writ petitioner cannot be termed as a punitive one and it is only on administrative grounds as claimed by the respondents 1 to 3.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, a teacher, was transferred to a different school, challenging which the writ petition was filed. The learned Judge allowed the writ petition. The respondents appealed against this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The finding of the learned Judge in coming to the conclusion that the first respondent is having every authority to transfer the teachers from institution to another, is sustainable in law and needs no interference by us. The transfer of the writ petitioner cannot be termed as a punitive one and it is only on administrative grounds as claimed by the respondents 1 to 3.
Issues: The main issues were whether the first respondent had the authority to transfer teachers from one institution to another and whether the transfer of the writ petitioner was punitive in nature.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the first respondent had the authority to transfer teachers from one institution to another. The court also found that the transfer of the writ petitioner was not punitive but was based on administrative grounds.
Final Decision: W.A.(MD)No.978 of 2014 filed by the writ petitioner, stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed; W.A.(MD)No.917 of 2014 preferred by the respondents 1 to 3, is allowed as above. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed; and There shall be no order as to costs in both the writ appeals.
R. Mahadevan, J.
1. Since both the writ appeals arise out of the order of the learned Judge, dated 14.07.2014 passed in W.P(MD)No.12058 of 2013, they are disposed of by this common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status in the writ petition.
3. Facts necessary for the disposal of these writ appeals, are as follows:
3.1. The writ petitioner was originally appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 29.07.1992 in the Society for Propagation of Gospel Primary School, Thuraiyur, Trichy District. Thereafter, she was transferred to CSI Primary School, Venkatapuram, on 02.06.1993. Again, she was transferred to the CSI Primary School, Kundalam, on 16.11.1995 and she got promotion to the post of Primary School Headmistress on 01.06.2005 and continued in the said school. Later, she was transferred to CSI Primary School, Mulanur, on 02.06.2006. Subsequently, she was once again transferred to CSI Elementary School, Avinasipalayam, Tirupur District, on 18.07.2013, by the impugned order. Challenging the same, the writ petition came to be filed.
3.2. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it was contended that since the writ petitioner had continuously worked for seven years in the very same place, she was transferred along with others on administrative ground, which, was only a general transfer. Denying the allegation of mala fides, the fourth respondent prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.
3.3. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the materials available on record, the learned Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition.
3.4. Aggrieved over the same, the respondents 1 to 3 are before this Court with the writ appeal in W.A.(MD)No.917 of 2014.
3.5. Whereas the writ petitioner has filed the another writ appeal in W.A.(MD)No.978 of 2014, challenging the finding of the learned Judge in paragraph 11 of the order to the effect that the first respondent is having every authority to transfer teachers from one institution to another.
4. Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the third respondent alone is the competent authority to appoint and transfer teachers in all the schools managed by CSI and that the schools are not separate units and that the writ proceedings initiated by the husband of the first respondent had no nexus with the transfer order made on administrative grounds and accordingly, he denied the allegation of mala fides. He further contended that the learned Judge ought to have considered the fact that the impugned transfer order was passed for the reason that the first respondent had been working in the same place for more than seven years and it could be termed as a punitive measure on the part of the appellants. Also, it is contended that merely based on presumption, the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal and the learned Judge had not gone into that aspect.
5. Refuting the allegations of mala fides, Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 also contended that the said transfer is in no way affecting the writ petitioner as there is no reversion or any deductions in the salary of the writ petitioner. He further added that it is only a policy decision of the first respondent for the reason that not only the writ petitioner, but also, 29 other teachers were transferred and hence, mala fides cannot be attributed as against the respondents 1 to 3. Moreover, he submitted that the learned Judge had also found that the first respondent was having every authority to effect such transfers and therefore, the plea of the writ petitioner that the first respondent had no authority to make transfers, is liable to be brushed aside.
6. It is his further submission that the transfer of the writ petitioner is not by way of punitive measure to wreck vengeance on the husband of the writ petitioner who initiated writ proceedings as against the Diocese and the writ p
