The central legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the management of TELC to transfer employees between institutions and the requirement for petitioners to substantiate allegations of malafide exercise of power.

1. The transfer orders issued by Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church, (for short, “the TELC”) are challenged by the petitioners primarily on the ground that each institution being a separate unit, it is not open to the management to make transfer from one institution to another.

Relevant facts :-

W.P.No.15599 of 2014 :-

2. The petitioner joined the service of TELC on 2 September 1991. He was initially appointed as Headmaster in TELC Primary School in 1997. The petitioner was subjected to transfer to other institutions with his consent. The petitioner is presently working as Headmaster in TELC Primary School, Karani Nizampet, Tiruvallur. He is now transferred to TELC Primary School, Mudur, Vellore District.

W.P.No.15600 of 2014 :-

3. The petitioner was appointed as Headmaster in TELC Primary School. He was transferred to other institutions run by TELC with his consent. The petitioner is presently working as Headmaster in TELC Primary School, Valarpuram, Kanchipuram District. The petitioner is transferred as Headmaster of Primary School at Cherambadi, Nilgiris District.

W.P.No.15918 of 2014 :-

4. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in LMC Higher Secondary School, Sirkali. Thereafter, he was transferred to other institutions run by TELC with his consent. The petitioner is presently working as Junior Assistant in LMC Higher Secondary School, Sirkali. TELC by order dated 28 May 2014, transferred the petitioner to TELC Kabis Higher Secondary School, Pandur.

W.P.No.15919 of 2014 :

5. The petitioner was appointed as Tamil Pandit in LMC Higher Secondary School, Sirkali on 10 June 1994. She was transferred thereafter with her consent. The petitioner is presently working in the said school. By order dated 28 May 2014, TELC, transferred the petitioner to TELC Higher Secondary School, Aranthangi.

6. The Secretary, TELC, in his detailed counter affidavit disputed the claim made by the petitioners. According to the first respondent, TELC is a religious minority institution. The Government have issued a letter dated 3 November 1987 making it clear that it is open to the management to transfer teachers from one school to another and that there is no requirement to declare it as a corporate body. Accordingly, the first respondent justified the impugned orders of transfer.

Rival contentions :-

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that TELC is not recognized as a corporate management and as such, it is not open to the management to transfer teachers and other employees from one institution to another. The learned counsel also contended that the transfer orders are punitive in nature.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that there is a dispute in the management and as such, the Secretary has no right to pass the impugned orders of transfer. The learned counsel also contended that in case the petitioners are transferred to another institution, they would lose their seniority and other service benefits.

9. The learned counsel for TELC while supporting the impugned orders contended that all the institutions are managed by TELC and as such, there is no legal prohibition for transferring the employees from one institution to another. The learned counsel denied the contention regarding mala fides.

Discussion :-

10. The petitioners have taken up a primary contention that TELC was not given management status and as such, it is not possible to transfer employees from one institution to another.

11. The affidavit filed in support of all the Writ Petitions contain a clear statement that the petitioners were earlier transferred from one institution to another. The petitioners have stated that such transfers were made with their consent. The petitioners have not produced their appointment orders to show that appointment was confined to a particular institution. Similarly, they have not produced the earlier transfer orders to prove that it was all transfers, based on consent. When it is made out petitioners were sub