A S SIVARAMAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of transfer, dated 8.11. 1984, passed by the third respondent and in order to quash the said order the petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of certiorari.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a teacher in Pernampet Panchayat Union School on 7-7-1967 and since then, he had been working in various Panchayat Union Schools situated within the limits of Pernampet Panchayat Union. He was lastly working as an Assistant at Pugalur Panchayat Union Elementary School. As the Headmaster of that school had gone on medical leave, the petitioner was officiating as in-charge Headmaster of the school from 6.11.1984. While so, by means of the impugned order, the petitioner was transferred to the Panchayat Union school in Kalayarkoil Panchayat Union school in Ramnad District. That school is said to be situate about 600 kms. away from the school, where the petitioner was working. The petitioner would contend that the order of transfer is not only an unusual one, but an abnormal one. It is the case of the petitioner that from the very inception, the teachers employed in the Panchayat Union schools would be transferred only to schools within the limits of the Panchayat Union and in case a transfer had to be effected on Inter-Panchayat Union basis, it would be effected only on the basis of mutual transfer. The situation continued to be the same even after the Government declar-ed the services of teachers in Panchayat Union schools to be Government service. Furthermore, there is a Government Order to the effect that the Government servants falling in the lower cadres of office should not be transferred to far away places. The impugned order gives the reason for the transfer as �public interest�. But there is no legal definition for the phrase �public interest� and as such, there is no means of knowing the exact ground on which the order of transfer had been passed. Even assuming that considerations of public interest have some relevance, the transfer of the petitioner cannot be justified, because the School wherein he was working was already under-staffed and as such, his transfer would result in further depletion of strength of the teaching staff. The order of transfer is further rendered infirm by the fact that it has been passed after the announcement of the General Elections even though there is a well settled practice that no Government servant should be transferred after the announcement of the General Elections. Lastly, the petitioner has stated that the disputed transfer would result in great Joss and hardship to him, because he has to look after his aged mother and a small piece of land which he possesses. On all these grounds the petitioner impugns the transfer order and prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the said order.

(3.) The writ petition was admitted and rule nisi was issued. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit, which has been sworn to by the third respondent. Therein it is stated that the petitioner was transferred to a school at Kalayarkoil in Ramnad district, as per the confidential instructions received from the Government. The disclosure of these instructions will be detrimental to public interest. But in order to satisfy the Court, the respondents are prepared to produce the confidential file relating to the petitioner before Court for its scrutiny. The transfer was necessitated on grounds of public interest and is in accordance with Government�s order, contained in G.O.Ms.No.857, Education, dated 23.5.1981. In similar circumstances, another School Assistant was transferred and the aggrieved party challenged the order of transfer before the High Court in W.P.12329 of 1984. The Government produced the records in that case and the Court, after scrutinising them, was pleased to dismiss the writ petition at the admission stage itself after ordering notice of motion. In another case, a teacher by name Ezhumalai was transferred on identical grounds and the said teacher has obeyed transfer order and joined duty. On account of these factors, the petitioner is not entitled to assail the order of transfer or to seek an order of stay till the disposal of the writ petition. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was also charge-sheeted by the police of Gudiyatham town police station under Sec.4(1)(j) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, and under Sec.75 of the Madras City Police Act, and the case is pending disposal. In such circumstances, the respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.