AROKIA MARY Vs. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the order of the second respondent, dated 30.1.2009 and the consequential proceedings of the third respondent dated 18.2.2009 as well as the proceedings of the fourth respondent, dated 26.2.2009. After setting aside those orders, he seeks for a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to accord approval to transfer and appointment of petitioner working as Secondary Grade teacher in the RCM Primary School, Kamaraja Nagar, Avadi, Chennai with effect from 19.12.2006 and also to regularise her service with all attendant benefits.

(2.) When the matter came up on 17.7.2009, this court directed the learned Government Advocate to take notice and also granted an interim stay. Subsequently, a counter affidavit, dated 18.12.2009 was filed by the third respondent DEEO, Thiruvallur on his behalf as well as on behalf of respondents 2 and 4 also. On behalf of 5th and 6th respondent, who are private respondents, a counter affidavit, dated 19.2.2010 was also filed.

(3.) It was claimed by the school management that on 18.12.2006 they transferred the petitioner from 5th respondent school to the 6th respondent school by way of transfer and that a proposal was also forwarded on 19.12.2006 for approval. The DEO, Ponneri granted approval for relieving the petitioner, on 2.4.2007. On 17.7.2007, the third respondent informed the fourth respondent to get appropriate approval from the Directorate, the second respondent herein. Thereafter, the first respondent by an order dated 8.9.2008 ratified the transfer having joined the sixth respondent school on 19.12.2006. Subsequently, on 21.10.2008, a consent was given for the said transfer. On 24.11.2008, the first respondent Director of School Education wrote to the second respondent to grant necessary order for continuance of the petitioner in the sixth respondent school as the said school came under the control of the second respondent Directorate. However, strangely, the second respondent Directorate of Elementary Education, by the impugned order, dated 30.1.2009, stated that transfer was made unilaterally and the school in question, i.e. sixth respondent, was having the sanctioned post of 1 + 11= 12, which included the post of Headmaster. Since the case of the petitioner is surplus to the requirement, the action of the management cannot be ratified.