Kottaiyur Chidambaram Chettiar Girls Higher Secondary School vs F.X. Philomina Kalaichelvi and The Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram

M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.—The writ petition illustrates how patently false averments are made in affidavits merely with a view to obtain interim

orders. The petitioner has challenged an order transferring her from one school to the other. That order in terms refers to a letter dated 18-6-1983,

written by the petitioner. It is an admitted position that by the letter dated 18-6-1983, the petitioner had herself asked for a transfer from the

school in which she was serving to another school. When an order of transfer was made, that was challenged in the writ petition on the ground that

it was made at the instance of the Headmistress and the Management of the school with a view to victimise her. It is almost unimaginable that any

lawyer who is entrusted with the task of filing a petition to challenge the impugned order would not ask the petitioner for the letter dated 18-6-

1983, since that letter is referred to in other order of transfer. The obvious inference which can be drawn on the facts of this case is that having full

knowledge of the letter dated 18-6-1983, the affidavit has been so tailored as to make out a case of victimisation. These allegations are obviously

and patently false both to the knowledge of the petitioner and to the counsel who drafted the petition.

It is a sad state of affairs that writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution has been abused in this manner to obtain interim orders and

admission of the petition.

We are inclined to take a serious view of the manner in which the contents of the affidavit have been drafted but what has influenced us so as not

to take drastic action against the litigant is that she is a poor teacher who obviously cannot be held responsible for suppression of the letter dated

18-6-1983. It was the primary duty of the counsel who drafted the affidavit to have gone through this letter and if the letter indicated that the

transfer order was made in pursuance of a voluntary demand for transfer by the petitioner herself, it would have been in keeping with high

standards of the profession to advise her not to file a false petition. Fortunately for the advocate who drafted the petition, he is not available today

because we are told that he has gone abroad. We were half inclined to issue a notice to the advocate himself.

We must make use of this occasion to point out that it is no duty of the lawyers'' profession to suppress facts in order to obtain interim orders

just because such orders are going to benefit their clients. Lawyers are officers of the court and their primary duty also lies to the court and it is this

duty which has to be harmonised with the duty towards their clients. Seeking orders for their clients cannot claim precedence over their duty to the

court. We therefore deprecate the attempt in this petition to obtain orders on patently false averments. As already pointed out, since the petitioner

happens to be a poor teacher and also a lady, we do not propose to take any action against her. We therefore dismiss the writ petition with costs

Rs. 250. Consequently no further orders in the appeal are necessary.