P GURUNATHAN Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides.

(2.) The petitioner is working as Warden at Adi Dravidar Boys Hostel at Ramanathapuram. He was transferred to that post on mutual transfer, by proceedings, dated 23.6.2009 and in his place, the 3rd respondent was transferred. According to the petitioner, the transfer of staff in the respondent's Department is governed by various Government Orders and for the year 2003, the 1st respondent has issued G.O. Ms. No. 64, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 3.6.2009 for conducting general counseling as well as for mutual transfer. As per the said G.O, before conducting general counseling, the authorities have to decide the mutual transfer of employees on the basis of the request given by the employees and after completing the transfer on mutual basis, transfer on general counseling can be conducted. Therefore, the petitioner and the 3rd respondent jointly made request to the 2nd respondent for mutual transfer and that was also accepted by the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent passed the transfer order, by his proceedings, dated, 23/6/2009 and the petitioner is serving in the transferred post from 26/6/2009. The petitioner has also admitted his son in a school at Ramanathapuram and his wife is also taking treatment after undergoing a major surgery in a hospital at Ramanathapuram and the petitioner is settled in Ramanathapuram. While so, the petitioner was informed by the 2nd respondent that the first respondent has issued an order, cancelling the mutual transfer ordered in favour of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and that order was dated 7.7.2009 and in that order, it has been stated that those who are working as Warden consecutively for three years shall be subject to transfer as per rules and as the petitioner and the 3rd respondent have consecutively worked as Warden for more than three years, the order of mutual transfer was cancelled. The order of the first respondent in cancelling the mutual transfer is challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) The first respondent filed a counter stating that as per G.O. Ms. No. 64, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 3.6.2009, a Warden, who served for 3 years in the Government Hostel as on 1.6.2009 should be transferred and posted as teacher in the school and as per 4(c) (ix) of the said G.O., a Warden after completion of three years should serve as a teacher for three years to claim the posting of Warden for the next turn. The petitioner colluded with the 3rd respondent has applied for mutual transfer and without knowing that the petitioner had already worked as Warden for three years and the 3rd respondent has already worked for more than 19 years, the request of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent were considered and orders were issued by the 2nd respondent, dated 23.6.2009 and after realising that the petitioner and the 3 rd respondent cannot claim transfer on mutual basis and erroneously the aforesaid order was passed, proceedings were issued by the first respondent setting aside the mutual transfer order already issued and it is in consonance with the aforesaid G.O. Ms. No. 64. It is further stated that there are two posts of B.T. teachers in the subject Maths and Science and those posts are lying vacant for considerable time and by reason of the mutual transfer ordered in favour of the petitioner and the 3 rd respondent, those posts of teachers could not be filled up and taking into consideration of all these facts, the mutual transfer order granted earlier was set aside by the impugned order and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.