LAWS(MAD)-2014-7-129

M. JEEVA JEYARANI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Decided On July 14, 2014
M. Jeeva Jeyarani Appellant
V/S
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 23 April, 2014, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner was transferred from BHM Primary School, Tharangaivasam, Trichy, to TELC Primary School at Mettuppatti.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in 1994. She was later promoted as Headmistress and posted at TELC Primary School, Ponmalaipatti, Trichy. There were proceedings between Thiru. Wilson Paulraj, Headmaster, TELC Primary School, Mettuppatti and the Chairman of the Educational Board, Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church [hereinafter referred to as 'TELC'], with regard to his transfer. Similarly, there were several litigations between two groups claiming right of management of TELC. While the petitioner was functioning as the Headmistress of BHM Primary School, Tranquebar House, Trichy , the eight respondent herein, who was not in good terms with her, was appointed as the Correspondent of the said School, on 04.07.2013. The eight respondent, to wreck vengeance on the petitioner, took up the issue with the third respondent and that resulted in passing the impugned order of transfer.

(3.) THE Chairman of the Educational Board, the third respondent herein, who is personally arrayed as fourth respondent, filed a counter -affidavit in answer to the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. According to the third respondent, the writ petitioner committed various acts of indiscipline. She never responded to the direction given by the Management. The third respondent has gone to the extent of alleging that without informing the Correspondent, she declared holiday to the school and allowed strangers to enter the school campus during working hours. It was further contended that in case the writ petitioner is allowed to continue in BHM Primary School, there would be reduction in admission and the same would result in re -deployment of teachers. Accordingly, the third respondent justified the impugned order.