N.A.A. Vijayarani Sakunthala Esther vs The Chief Educational Officer and Others

K. Chandru, J.—The Petitioner filed the present writ petition, seeking to challenge the order dated 06.09.2010 as well as the consequential order dated 06.09.2010 and seeks for setting aside the same.

The Petitioner was working as a Drawing Mistress in the 5th Respondent school. By the impugned order dated 06.09.2010, the 4th Respondent Manager transferred the Petitioner from the 5th Respondent school to the 6th Respondent school on being recommended by the Standing Committee for higher education. On the same day, the Petitioner was also given relieving order by the 5th Respondent.

The writ petition was admitted on 16.09.2010. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an order of interim stay. Aggrieved by the grant of interim stay, the 4th Respondent filed a vacate stay application in M.P.(Md) No. 3 of 2010 together with supporting counter affidavit dated 21.09.2010. When the vacate stay application came up for hearing, with the consent of parties, the main writ petition was taken up for final disposal.

The contention of the Petitioner was since there is a dispute relating to the validity of election held for the third Respondent Trust Association and the matters are pending in the Courts, the 4th Respondent has no jurisdiction to transfer the Petitioner. It was also contended that since the Petitioner''s brother had filed several writ petitions including SLP against the 4th Respondent mis-using the funds for conducting various disputes relating to the election, with mala fide motive the Petitioner was transferred. It was also stated she has only 9 months of service in the school and at the verge of retirement and the present transferred place is 40 kms away from the present school. It was also contended that in the present school she is not only a Drawing Mistress but also holding the post of Assistant Headmistress. But in the transferred place, she will not be given the post of Assistant Headmistress as seen from the transfer order and the transfer amounts to virtual demotion.

In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th Respondent, it was stated that the Petitioner holds the post of Assistant Headmistress based on her seniority for the year 2008-2009. Whereas in the year 2009-2010, it was found that one Paramanantham, a Secondary grade teacher is senior to the Petitioner and therefore, he was elevated to hold the post of Assistant Headmaster. But however, without standing on any formalities in paragraph 10 and 12 of the counter affidavit, the 4th Respondent gave the following undertaking:

The writ Petitioner raised a allegation that she was depromoted from the post of Assistant Headmaster by the transfer order. And further she alleged that the impugned order is punitive in nature. It is totally untrue and against the principle of natural justice. As per the transfer order she would hold the same Assistant headmistress post in the transferring school. And further his positions will not changed by the transfer order and she also get all the monetary benefits in the transferred school. 12. It is respectfully submitted that even now on behalf of the management of the Tirunelveli Diocese I beg to submit that there will not be any change in writ Petitioner''s rank and she will hold the post of assistant Headmistress in the transferring school namely West Tirunelveli Higher Secondary School, Nallur.

It was also stated in the counter affidavit that in a pending civil proceedings in C.M.A. No. 2 of 2010, an interim application was filed in I.A. No. 616/2010 citing the same one of the grounds raised in this writ petition. However, the Civil Court did not give any order and dismissed the interim application. It was further stated that Bishop of the Diocese is the sole authority to appoint the Manager in consultation with the Education committee and thus, the 4th Respondent was validly appointed as a Manager of the school. The fact that the Petitioner''s brother had filed several cases did not influence the transfer of the Petitioner. With reference to the question of locus standi, it was stated that the Petitioner was receiving salary for three years only on the administration of the 4th Respondent and she has no right to question his authority.

In the counter affidavit filed by the 5th Respondent, it was stated that Committee for higher education has passed the order of transfer and transfers are being made on a routine norm in respect of each academic year. The transferred school at Nallur is only 30 kms away from the present school and situated near the Taluk headquarters. There are frequent buses at the interval of every 10 minutes to the said place. The Petitioner was initially appointed at Megnanapuram on 08.06.1973. Thereafter, she had been periodically transferred to various schools under the control of TD TA management. Lastly, she worked at Bungalow Surandai. Therefore, there was no illegality in the order of transfer and that she will not be denied of either status or emoluments by the transfer.

Mr. Veerakathiravan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner principally raised two contentions. So far as the contention relating to pending election dispute is concerned, this Court is not concerned about the same. Even if there was any dispute among the office bearers, it cannot paralayse the administration of the school. Whoever is holding the office of Manager is entitled to administer the school. There cannot be vacuum in the matter of administration. The next contention that it was due to mala fide, transfer was made was squarely denied in the counter affidavit filed by Respondents 4 and 5. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the same. The last contention that she will be demoted by the order of transfer was not only denied and the undertaking given clearly shows that even in the transferred place, the Petitioner will have the same status.

The question relating to transfer of a teacher working in the minority school came to be considered by a Full Bench of this Court in The Correspondent, Malankara Syrian Catholic School Vs. J. Rabinson Jacob and Others, and the power of the minority management to transfer teachers from one school to another was held to be permissible if there was an agreement to that effect. In this case, the power of transfer is not questioned by the Petitioner.

In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief. There is neither any illegality nor irregularity in the order of transfer passed by the contesting Respondent. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.