SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 1761

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
S. Jamuna Rani - Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of School Education, Directorate of School Education, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P.No. 13228 of 2022 & W.M.P.No. 12561 of 2022
Decided On : 25-05-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:M/s. Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Advocate for M/s. C. Uma, Advocate. For the Respondents: P. Bala Thandayuthan, Special Government Pleader.

Headnote:

Transfer Counselling - Government Servants - Section 48 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 48 of the Act, which contemplates posting and transfer of government servants. It emphasized that the power of transfer and posting conferred under the Act on the Government is absolute and cannot be superseded by guidelines or instructions. The court highlighted that concessions and facilities provided to government employees do not confer absolute rights and cannot be a basis for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It also emphasized that the power of judicial review under Article 226 is to ensure the process of decision-making is in consonance with the statute, not to interfere with administrative decisions.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to comply with an earlier order for Special Transfer Counselling to enable her to opt for transfer as Headmistress in a nearby school. The respondents objected, stating there was no vacancy for the Headmistress post and that counselling was a concession, not a right.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the relief sought in the writ petition was not entertainable as it sought to implement earlier orders in a new petition. It emphasized that concessions and facilities provided to government employees do not confer absolute rights and cannot be a basis for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's right to participate in Special Transfer Counselling and the implementation of earlier court orders.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power of transfer and posting conferred under the Act on the Government is absolute and cannot be superseded by guidelines or instructions. It emphasized that concessions and facilities provided to government employees do not confer absolute rights and cannot be a basis for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to establish any right for the relief sought. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents 2, 3 and 4 to comply with the order dated 15.03.2022 in W.P.No.3089/2022 and call the Petitioner for Special Transfer Counselling before 31.05.2022 to enable the petitioner to opt for transfer as Headmistress in the retirement vacancy in the post of Headmistress, Government High School, Annai Sivakami Nagar, Thiruvotriyur, which school is near petitioner place of residence in Anna Nagar, Chennai.)

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the Respondents 2, 3 and 4 to comply with the order dated 15.03.2022 passed in W.P.No.3089 of 2022 and call the Petitioner for Special Transfer Counselling before 31.05.2022 to enable the petitioner to opt for transfer as Headmistress in the retirement vacancy in the post of Headmistress, Government High School, Annai Sivakami Nagar, Thiruvotriyur, which school is near petitioner place of residence in Anna Nagar, Chennai.

2. The petitioner is now working as Headmistress in Kesavarajakuppam Post, Pallipattu Taluk, Thiruvallur district.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner contended that the petitioner was transferred, in view of the upgradation of the High School to Higher Secondary School and she was not transferred on account of her own volition. Therefore, she must be permitted to participate in the Special Counselling to be conducted by the Department.

4. The learned Senior Counsel made a submission that the petitioner along with 70 other Teachers filed W.P.Nos.3081, 3089 and 3122 of 2022 and this Court passed an order on 15.03.2022, permitting the petitioners to participate in the general transfer counselling for the Academic Year 2021-22. In this regard, the Commissioner of School Education is directed to conduct Special Counselling for all the 72 Teachers in that writ petition on or before March 2022.

5. The grievances of the writ petitioner is that the said order has not implemented. The petitioner was not called for to participate in the Special Counselling. Thus, the present writ petition is filed, seeking for a direction to implement the orders passed in the above writ petition on 15.03.2022.

6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner by stating that the petitioner is working as Headmistress in High School and there is no vacancy in respect of the Headmistress Post and the other writ petitioners in the said writ petition are working as PG Assistants and therefore, the petitioner was not provided with an opportunity to participate in the general transfer counselling.

7. In reply, the learned Senior Advocate made a submission that the statement made by the learned Special Government Pleader is incorrect and in fact, there is a retirement vacancy available in Government High School, Annai Sivakami Nagar, Thiruvotriyur and the petitioner may be accommodated in the said post by permitting her to participate in the General Transfer Counselling.

8. This Court is of the considered opinion that the relief sought for in the present writ petition perse is not entertainable. The relief sought for is to direct the respondents to implement the orders passed in writ petition in W.P.Nos.3081, 3089 and 3122 of 2022 dated 15.03.2022. Such a relief cannot be granted in a writ proceedings. Thus, the writ petition is not entertainable at the first instance.

9. Let us now consider the scope of the transfer and posting and also to participate in the process of counselling.

10. This Court is of the considered opinion that the rights of the petitioner regarding posting and transfer of his/her choice is to be first considered.

11. With reference to the above issue, it is relevant to consider Section 48 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, which contemplates posting and transfer. Sub-section (1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top