AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Ramanathan, J.—Heard both sides.
These two writ petitions are filed by the petitioners, who are the husband and wife, challenged the order of transfer by which they were
transferred from SDA School, Virudhunagar to SDA School, Kalpakkam as Teacher. The petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 5106 of 2009 has stated
that he was appointed on 12.06.1979 as teacher in the Seventh-Day Adventist Matriculation Higher Secondary School at Thanjavur, which is run
by the 2nd respondent and he was transferred to various schools in Tamil Nadu, which are run by the 2nd respondent and in the year 2003, he
was transferred to the 4th respondent school at Virudhungar.
According to him, he made some allegations against the Principal of the school that the Principal in connivance with the 3rd respondent,
indulging in malpractices in the administration of the school and therefore, the 3rd respondent and the Principal of the school have got grudge
against him and at the instance of the 3rd respondent, he was placed under suspension, by order, dated 27.02.2007 and the order of suspension
was quashed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 2260 of 2007.
It is further stated that in May 2008, he sustained injury in the right Knee and as a result, an artificial limb was fitted in the right Knee and he was
allowed to joined the duty on 05.01.2009 and the 3rd respondent insisted the petitioner to go on voluntary retirement and due to hostile attitude of
the Principal and the 3rd respondent towards him, the petitioner was transferred to SDA School, Kalpakkam, and the transfer order is a non-
speaking order and therefore, it is liable to be quashed.
The petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 5107 of 2009 is the wife of the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 5106 of 2009 and she also stated that she is
working as teacher in the Seventh Day Adventist Matriculation High Secondary School, Virudhunagar, run by the 2nd respondent and she was
also transferred along with her husband to the 4th respondent school as they had made some allegations against the 3rd respondent about the
irregularities committed by him and therefore, the 3rd respondent has got grudge against her husband and at his instance, she and her husband
were transferred to Kalpakkam school and the said transfer order is against the provisions of the code of regulation for matriculation school and
the transfer order is a mala-fide one and is liable to be set aside.
The respondents 2 to 4 filed a common counter wherein they denied the allegations of mala-fide and it is stated that the petitioners were
transferred to various schools for the past 23 years and there was no complaint made by them and not only the petitioners, but also the other
teachers were transferred to other schools and it is a routine transfer. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent is having schools all over Tamil
Nadu and the teachers are transferred to various schools due to administrative reasons and in a normal course, the petitioners were transferred to
Kalpakkam school and the petitioners after relieved from Virudhunagar SDA school went to Kalpakkam SDA School and met the Principal of
that school on 01.06.2009 and expressed their wiliness to join in that school. Further, the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 5107 of 2009 also received
a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as advance from the Principal of Kalpakkam school for shifting their household things to Kalpakkam and after receiving the
amount, these writ petitions were filed.
It is further stated that the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 5106 of 2009 was also paid his all allowances, while he was relieved from the school at
Viruidhunagar and he received a total sum of Rs. 51,205/- and he also received advance of Rs. 10,000/- from the Kalpakkam school for shifting
his household article and therefore, it cannot be stated due to mala-fide reasons, the petitioners were transferred. It is further stated that in the
place of the Petitioners, Mrs. S. Jeeva Christy and Mrs. S. Deepalakshmi were appointed and even before getting the stay order from this Court,
the petitioners were relieved and the order of transfer is a routine one made on administrative grounds.
The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents relied upon the Judgment reported in 2003 (4) CTC 65 in the case of The Manger, R.C.
Schools, Salem Social Services Society, Alagapuram, Salem and Anr. v. G. Vicent Paulraj and Anr. and 2007 (1) MLJ 463 in the case of Y.
Balachandra Babu and Anr. v. District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai Educational District and Marthandam, Kanyakumari District and Ors. in
support of their contention.
I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by both the counsels.
It is admitted by the petitioners that the 2nd respondent is running various schools at various places in Tamil Nadu and in the past, the
petitioners were also transferred to various schools. Therefore, when the managing is having various schools and teachers are transferred from one
school to another school in the same management, the transfer is an incident of service and the same cannot be challenged, unless some mala-fide
is attributed against the management or the transfer order is punitive in nature. It is seen from the order that the transfer orders are purely simple
transfer and the transfer orders were issued on administrative grounds. It is also well settled that when the transfers are made on administrative
grounds, there is no need to give any reason. In this case also, no reason was stated for transferring the petitioners and therefore, it cannot be
stated that the order of transfer is vitiated by malafide or is a punitive transfer.
It is contented by the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners that the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 5106 of 2009 had made
allegations against the 3rd respondent and therefore, the 3rd respondent has got grudge against the petitioners and to settle his score against the
petitioners and at his instance, the petitioner and his wife were transferred. When allegations are made attributing mala-fide against the person in
management, it is the duty of the person, who is making such allegations to prove the same. In this case, except the allegations made in the affidavit,
the petitioners are not able to prove or substantiate the said charges against the 3rd respondent.
Further, it is stated by the respondents 2 to 4 that not only the petitioners, but other teachers were also transferred along-with the petitioners
and that would also prove that the petitioners were not singled out and it is seen from the typed set of papers that along-with the petitioners six
other teachers were transferred to various schools.
It has been held in the judgment reported in 2003 (4) CTC 65, in the case of The Manger, R.C. Schools, Salem Social Services Society,
Alagapuram, Salem and Anr. v. G. Vicent Paulraj and Anr., when the management is running various schools in various places and teachers were
transferred from one school to another under the same management, the same cannot be questioned.
As stated supra, in this case, it is admitted that the petitioners were transferred in the past and they are working in the school from 2003
onward and hence, the management though it fit to transfer the petitioners to their school at Kapakkam, Further, by reason of the transfer order, it
is not stated that the petitioners'' service condition are affected and unless, the transfer is expressly barred by service conditions, the petitioners are
not entitled to challenge the same.
In the judgment reported in 2007 (1) MLJ 463 in the case of Y. Balachandra Babu and Anr. v. District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai
Educational District and Marthandam, Kanyakumari District and Ors., it has been held that under provision of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private
Schools (Regulations) Act, the corporate body running more than one school should be treated as one unit for the purpose of the Rule relating to
qualifications, conditions of service of teachers and other persons employed in the aided private schools and therefore, the order is not against the
provision of the Act. The same analogy can be applied to the 2nd respondent school as admittedly, the 2nd respondent is running various schools
and in the past, the petitioners were transferred. Therefore, in my view, no reason has been stated by the petitioners questioning the order of the
transfer and the transfer order is not passed by way of of punishment and it is only a routine transfer made in the course of service and the same
cannot be challenged.
Hence, the order of transfer passed by the 2nd respondent is upheld and accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.