Madras High Court
O.Selvam vs The Commissioner Of School ... on 25 March, 2022
W.A(MD)Nos. 254 and 255 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A(MD)Nos. 254 and 255 of 2022
and C.M.P.(MD) Nos. 2399 and 2400 of 2022
W.A(MD)No. 254 of 2022:
1. O.Selvam
2. S.Sivakumar
3. M.Indira
4. M.Ananth .. Appellants
Vs
1.The Commissioner of School Education,
O/o. Commissioner of School Education,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel),
O/o. The Joint Director of School Education,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
4.The Chief Educational Officer,
Theni District,
Theni.
5.The Chief Educational Officer,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/31
W.A(MD)Nos. 254 and 255 of 2022
6.The Chief Educational Officer,
Kanyakumari District,
Kanyakumari.
7.The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
8.M.Palpandi
9.K.Venkatesan
10.R.Venkatraman
11.A.Iyappan
12.Y.L.Rajamohan
13.S.George Benet
14.S.Jeyaram
15.R.Sureshkumar .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the common order dated 04.03.2022 recorded on W.P.(MD)
No. 429 of 2022 and cognate petitions.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Ajmalkhan
Senior Counsel for
M/s.Ajmal Associates
For : Mr.Veera Kathiravan,
Respondents Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.S.P.Maharajan
Special Government Pleader for
R1 to 7
W.A(MD)No. 255 of 2022:
K.Shanthi .. Appellant
Vs
1.The Commissioner of School Education,
O/o. Commissioner of School Education,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos. 254 and 255 of 2022
2.The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel),
O/o. The Joint Director of School Education,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Karur District,
Karur.
4.The District Educational Officer,
O/o. District Educational Office,
Karur Taluk, Karur District. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order dated 04.03.2022 recorded on W.P.(MD) No. 807
of 2022.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Ajmalkhan
Senior Counsel for
M/s.Ajmal Associates
For Respondents : Mr.Veera Kathiravan,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.S.P.Maharajan
Special Government Pleader
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.]
Challenge in these appeals is made to the common order
dated 04.03.2022 recorded on group of petitions being W.P.(MD)
Nos. 429, 644, 787 & 807 of 2022. These two appeals are arising
from W.P.(MD) No. 429 of 2022 and W.P.(MD) No. 807 of 2022.
These appeals are by the writ petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos. 254 and 255 of 2022
2. Mr.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Advocate for the
writ petitioners / appellants has submitted that, the general
directions issued by the respondent State Authorities dated 06
January 2022 and the consequential transfer / posting orders issued
on 07 January 2022, which were impugned in the writ petitions
were not only illegal and arbitrary but the official respondents did
not have any authority to pass that order in view of the statutory
rules holding the field. It is submitted that, the petitioners were
initially appointed as Graduate Teachers / B.T. Assistants and on
satisfying the conditions of passing examinations etc., as
contemplated under the Rules, they were appointed on the post of
Deputy Inspector of Schools by way of transfer which is recognized
as the sole mode of appointment on that post. It is submitted that
though the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Deputy
Inspector of Schools was by way of transfer, it would be wrong to
consider the said order as 'transfer order' in view of the rule that
the said order was not 'administrative transfer' but was a recognized
and sole mode of appointment, as provided under the Rule. It is
submitted that, transferring the petitioners from the post of Deputy
Inspector of Schools to that of Graduate Teacher is not
contemplated under the Rules and therefore the general orders to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos. 254 and 255 of 2022
transfer all Deputy Inspector of Schools who have completed certain
years of service in that post as Graduate Teachers, is inconsistent
with the notification dated 30 January 2020. It is submitted that,
the said order being unsustainable, was initially rightly stayed by
this Court which ought to have been considered by the writ court at
the time of final hearing and dismissal of the writ petitions, more
particularly for the reasons recorded in para: 23 and 31 are
erroneous. It is submitted that, the said error is an error apparent
on the face of record, which needs to be corrected by this Court
under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act. While referring to the
Government notification dated 30 January 2020, reference is also
made to the Subordinate Service Rules as contained in manual of
2016 by specific reference to Section 48 to contend that, in the
earlier set of Rules, the post of Deputy Inspector of Schools and
Graduate Assistants was interchangeable, however the same is not
the position, in view of the subsequent notification dated 30 January
2020. It is submitted that these appeals be allowed by setting aside
the order of learned Single Judge and by setting aside the orders
impugned in the writ petitions.
3.1 On the other hand, Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned
Additional Advocate General has opposed these appeals. It is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos. 254 and 255 of 2022
submitted that, the orders impugned in the writ petitions were
simple transfer on administrative ground. It is submitted that the
stand of the State, as contained in the counters which were on
record is rightly taken into consideration while deciding the writ
petitions and no interference be made by this Court. Attention of the
Court is invited to the relevant paragraphs of the impugned order
wherein the stand of the State is reflected and the same is
reiterated before us as well. It read as under:-
“11. The learned Additional Advocate
General further contended that the post
of Deputy Inspector of Schools is
defined in Class-I Category-1 of re-
issue of the Special Rules for Tamil
Nadu School Educational Subordinate
Service vide G.O.Ms.No.12, School
Education Department, dated 30.01.2020.
The post of Deputy Inspector of Schools
is equivalent to the post of Graduate
Teacher (Subjects, Tamil, English)
defined in Class - I Category-2, Class-
II, Class-III and Class-IV of the same
service. Rule-2 of the Special Rules
provides “Appointment”. Sub-Rule (a) to
Rule 2 of the Special Rules contemplates
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos. 254 and 255 of 2022
appointment to several classes and
categories of the service to be made as
contemplated under the Rules. The posts
of Deputy Inspector of Schools and
Graduate Teacher (Tamil, English, Maths,
Science and Social Science) belong to
the same cadre with identical scale of
pay. But, pass in the departmental
tests, such as District Office Manual,
Tamil Nadu School Education
Administrative Test-Paper I, Paper-II
and Account Test for Subordinate
Officers Part-I are mandatory for
getting transfer to the post of Deputy
Inspector of Schools from the post of
Graduate Teacher as prescribed in Rule 8
of the Service Rules. Thus, anyone of
the qualified Graduate Teachers
possessing pass in departmental tests
can be posted as Deputy Inspector of
Schools by way of transfer. The post of
Deputy Inspector of Schools is the
administrative post in the Office of the
District Educational Officer.
12. The learned Additional Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos. 254 and 255 of 2022
General further contended that if the
monitoring staff in the administrative
posts of the School Education Department
such as P.A. to CEO (HSS HM Cadre), PA
to CEO (High School HM Cadre) in the
Chief Educational Offices and Deputy
Inspector of Schools in DEO Offices,
BRTE-s working in various districts
under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme, are
allowed to work more than three years in
the same station, the purpose of
monitoring would lose it's merits.
Hence, the Government took a policy
decision vide G.O.Ms.No.134, School
Education Department, dated 18.08.2021
to conduct zero counselling to 3700
BRTE-s working in various districts
under Samagra Shiksha Scheme as they are
working more than seven years in the
same station. The zero transfer
counselling was conducted on 20.10.2021
and all total BRTEs were transferred by
the Department.
13. Further, the learned Additional
Advocate General contended that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos. 254 and 255 of 2022
District Educational Officers working
more than two years in a particular
educational district were transferred to
other stations on 12.10.2021 by the
Department. Similarly, the P.A. to CEO
(Higher Secondary HM Cadre) and P.A. to
CEO (High School HM Cadre) working in
the Chief Educational Offices for more
than three years were transferred and
posted as Higher Secondary School
Headmaster / High School Headmaster
respectively.
14. Further, it is contended by the
learned Additional Advocate General that
the impugned proceedings of the Joint
Director of School Education and the
consequential administrative transfer
proceedings of the Chief Educational
Officer are only continuation of the
above said process in order to revamp
the School Educational Department.
15. The learned Additional Advocate
General reiterated that as far as the
converted Deputy Inspector of Schools /
B.T.Assistant is concerned, primacy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos. 254 and 255 of 2022
should be given to B.T.Assistant
vacancies. After conversion of Deputy
Inspectors of Schools to B.T.Assistants,
thereafter for the remaining vacancies
of B.T.Assistant, the General Transfer
counselling has to be conducted strictly
adhering the general transfer
counselling norms contemplated under
G.O.Ms.No.176, School Education
Department, dated 17.12.2021. No Deputy
Inspector of Schools can have a vested
right to remain the same post all along
the entire service.
16. It is further contended by the
learned Additional Advocate General that
the transfer of Deputy Inspectors of
Schools to B.T.Assistants in Schools
would not alter any of the service
conditions of the petitioners. Since
these two posts are equivalent cadre
with equal scale of pay and
interchangeable, they are included in
the panel for promotion as
P.G.Assistants and High School
Headmasters every year based on the date
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos. 254 and 255 of 2022
of regularization in the post of
B.T.Assistant only as per seniority.
They are not affected anyway and hence,
there is no injustice caused to them and
hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ
petitions.
17. The learned Additional Advocate
General, in support of his contentions,
placed reliance upon the
17.1. Decision of the Honourable Supreme
Court in the case of State of U.P. and
others vs. Gobardhan Lal, reported in
(2004) 11 SCC 402, wherein, in Paragraph
No.7, the Apex Court has observed as
follows:
“7.It is too late in the day for any
Government Servant to contend that
once appointed or posted in a
particular place or position, he
should continue in such place or
position as long as he desires.
Transfer of an employee is not only
an incident inherent in the terms of
appointment but also implicit as an
essential condition of service in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos. 254 and 255 of 2022
the absence of any specific
indication to the contra, in the law
governing or conditions of service.
Unless the order of transfer is
shown to be an outcome of a mala
fide exercise of power or violative
of any statutory provision (an Act
or Rule) or passed by an authority
not competent to do so, an order of
transfer cannot lightly be
interfered with as a matter of
course or routine for any or every
type of grievance sought to be made.
Even administrative guidelines for
regulating transfers or containing
transfer policies at best may afford
an opportunity to the officer or
servant concerned to approach their
higher authorities for redress but
cannot have the consequence of
depriving or denying the competent
authority to transfer a particular
officer/servant to any place in
public interest and as is found
necessitated by exigencies of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos. 254 and 255 of 2022
service as long as the official
status is not affected adversely and
there is no infraction of any career
prospects such as seniority, scale
of pay and secured emoluments. This
Court has often reiterated that the
order of transfer made even in
transgression of administrative
guidelines cannot also be interfered
with, as they do not confer any
legally enforceable rights, unless,
as noticed supra, shown to be
vitiated by mala fides or is made in
violation of any statutory
provision.”
17.2. Decision of the Honourable Supreme
Court in the case of B.Varadha Rao vs.
State of Karnataka and others, reported
in (1986) 4 SCC 131, wherein, in
Paragraph No.4, the Apex Court has
observed as follows:
“That a Government servant is liable
to be transferred to a similar post
in the same cadre is a normal feature
and incident of Government service
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos. 254 and 255 of 2022
and no Government servant can claim
to remain in a particular place or in
a particular post unless, of course,
his appointment itself is to a
specified, non-transferable post. As
the learned Judges rightly observe :
The norms enunciated by Government
for the guidance of its officers in
the matter of regulating transfers
are more in the nature of guidelines
to the officers who order transfers
in the exigencies of administration
than vesting of any immunity from
transfer in the Government servants.”
17.3. Decision of the Honourable Supreme
Court in the case of E.P.Royappa vs.
State of Tamil Nadu and another,
reported in 1974 AIR 555, wherein, the
Apex Court has held that transfer is
also an implied condition of service and
appointing authority has a vide
discretion in the matter.
17.4. Decision of the Honourable Supreme
Court in the case of Rajendra Singh and
others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos. 254 and 255 of 2022
others, reported in (2009) 15 SCC 178,
wherein, the Apex Court, has held as
follows:
“A government servant has no vested
right to remain posted at a place of
his choice nor can he insist that he
must be posted at one place or the
other. He is liable to be
transferred in the administrative
exigencies from one place to the
other. Transfer of an employee is
not only an incident inherent in the
terms of appointment, but alo
implicit as an essential condition of
service in the absence of any
specific indications to the contrary.
No government can function if the
government servant insists that once
appointed or posted in a particular
place or position, he should continue
in such place or position as long as
he desires.””
3.2 Learned Additional Advocate General has
specifically referred to Rule 11 of the Notification dated 30 January
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos. 254 and 255 of 2022
2020 to contend that, the impugned action was pure administrative
transfer and the State Authorities were well within the powers and
discretion to order transfer. It is further submitted that, those, who
were ordered to be transferred had put in substantial years of
service and therefore on that count also the transfer can not be said
to be arbitrary. The substance of the argument on behalf of the
State is that the impugned orders were transfer on administrative
ground and well within the domain of the State and it was done
without any pick and chose manner, therefore it was neither illegal
nor arbitrary and no service condition is affected in any manner. It is
further submitted that, the seniority of the petitioner as B.T
Assistants is also protected and therefore not only no prejudice is
caused in the pay scale, even in the seniority also no prejudice is
caused to the petitioners and therefore dismissal of writ petitions
can not be said to be erroneous in any manner and therefore no
interference be made by this Court. It is further submitted that
more than 1000 persons, who are working as B.T. Assistants are
eligible to work as Deputy Inspector of Schools and therefore those
who are sought to be posted vice the appellants in no way can be
said to be ineligible to hold that post. It is submitted that these
appeals be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos. 254 and 255 of 2022
4. Having heard learned Senior Advocates for the
respective parties and having considered the material on record this
Court finds as under:-
4.1 At the outset it is noted that, the following
contentions of learned Additional Advocate General are accepted.
4.2 This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India would be very slow to interfere in any transfer matter.
4.3 The pay of the appellants is not changed to their
detriment by the impugned transfer.
4.4 So far justification of non-arbitrariness is
concerned, we accept the argument that the impugned action is not
in pick and chose manner and no appellant can be said to have been
disturbed in short span of the posting.
4.5 The case of the State is also accepted to the
effect that the persons who are sought to be posted vice the
appellants can not be said to be ineligible in any manner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos. 254 and 255 of 2022
5.1 The point at issue before this Court is only,
whether the impugned transfer of the appellants from the post of
Deputy Inspector of Schools to Graduate Teacher is simple transfer
on administrative ground or is beyond it, keeping in view the
statutory Rules, holding the field. In this regard, two sets of Rules
which are referred to by both the learned Senior Advocates need to
be kept in view.
5.2 The first set of Rule, which is earlier set of Rule,
finds place in Tamil Nadu Services Manual Volume III Subordinate
Services with specific reference to Section 48 - The Tamil Nadu
School Education Subordinate Service.
5.3.1 In the above set of Rules, the post of Deputy
Inspector of Schools and School Assistants are referred as under:-
“Class and Category
(1) Deputy Inspector of Schools and
School Assistants
(2) Junior Deputy Inspector of Schools”
5.3.2 The above would show that Deputy Inspector of
Schools and School Assistants – both are treated as the same class
and category by the said set of Rules.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos. 254 and 255 of 2022
5.4 The second set of Rules is the notification issued
by the Government of Tamil Nadu in Extraordinary Government
Gazette, School Education Department dated 30 January 2020, with
the head 'Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Elementary Education
Subordinate Service'. Rule 2 thereof, reads as under:-
“Appointment. - (a) Appointment to the
several classes and categories of the
service shall be made as follows:-
Class and Category Method of Appointment
Class I (1) (2)
Category 1 Deputy Inspector of By Transfer from category 2 of
School class 1 or classed II,III,IV
in the service
Category 2 Graduate Teacher (i) by Direct recruitment; or
(subjects)
(ii) by Promotion from any
other post; or
(iii) (a) Recruitment by
transfer from the post of
Superintendent in School
Education Department in the
Tamil Nadu Ministerial
Service;
(b) if no candidate is
available for appointment by
the method (ad) above,
recruitment by transfer from
the post of Assistants in
School Education Department in
the Tamil Nadu Ministerial
Service;
(c)If no candidate is
available for appointment by
the methods (a) and (b) above,
recruitment by transfer from
the post of Junior Assistant
in School Education Department
in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial
Service;
(d)If no candidate is
available for appointment by
the methods (i),(ii) and (iii)
above, recruitment by transfer
from any other service;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos. 254 and 255 of 2022
5.5 Rule 11 of the said set of Rules which is heavily
relied by learned Additional Advocate General, reads as under:-
“11. Transfers and Postings.- (a) (i)
Transfers and postings of the personnel
in all classes of the service within the
revenue districts shall be made by the
Chief Educational Officer of the
concerned revenue districts.
(ii) Transfers and postings of the
peronnel in all classes of the service
within the educational districts shall
be made by the District Educational
Officer of the concerned educational
districts.
(b) Inter-Revenue District Transfer and
postings of all Officers in the service
shall be made by the Joint Director of
School Education (Personnel).”
5.6 Rule 8 of the said set of rules reads as under:-
“8. Tests.- No person shall be eligible
for appointment to the post of Deputy
Inspector of Schools unless he has
passed the following tests:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos. 254 and 255 of 2022
(i)Tamil Nadu School Education
Department Administrative Test - - Paper
I (Higher Secondary / Secondary /
Teacher Training and Special Schools)
(ii)Tamil Nadu School Education
Department Administrative Test – Paper –
II (Elementary / Middle and Special
Schools)
(iii)Account Test for Subordinate
Officer Part - I”
5.7 The conjoint consideration of the above takes this
Court to the first point to be decided, of these two sets of Rules,
which one holds the field. In this regard it needs to be noted that,
the very opening part of the notification dated 30 January 2020
reads as under:-
“In exercise of the powers conferred by
proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India and of all other
powers hereunto enabling and in
supersession of the Special Rules for
Tamil Nadu Elementary Educational
Subordinate Service, contained in
Section 48A in volume III of the Tamil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos. 254 and 255 of 2022
Nadu Services Manual, 2016 so far as
they relate to the posts now coming
under the School Education Department
and included in the present rules, the
Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby re-issue
the following Special Rules for the
Tamil Nadu Elementary Educational
Subordinate Service (Section 48A in
Volume- III of the Tamil Nadu Service
Manual,2016)”
(emphasis supplied)
5.8 The above makes two things clear. Firstly, the
notification dated 30 January 2020 is issued in exercise of powers
under proviso to Article 309 of Constitution of India and thus does
have statutory force. Secondly, it also defines that, the same is in
supersession of all earlier Rules and Regulations in that regard
including Section 48A, which is referred above as the earlier set of
Rules. The conjoint reading thereof would leave no room but to hold
that, of these two sets of rules, it is the subsequent set of rule
(Notification dated 30 January 2020) which holds the filed and it
should be the guiding factor for deciding the controversy at hand.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos. 254 and 255 of 2022
6.1 Having held that, it is the notification dated 30
January 2020, which would be a guiding factor, still the argument of
learned Additional Advocate General is right to the extent that,
when the powers are administrative in nature, the court would be
very slow to exercise discretion to interfere in such matters. We
find that, though this contention is right, the notification dated 30
January 2020 can not be said to be administrative instruction but it
has binding force and since it is in exercise of powers under proviso
to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the appellants are
statutorily entitled to take shelter under that notification, if any
breach thereof is pointed out. Keeping these parameters in view, we
have examined the action of the State.
6.2 The said notification defines appointment in
different categories. Category 1 is 'Deputy Inspector of Schools'.
'Graduate Teacher (subjects)' is treated as Category 2 in other
words altogether a different category than 'Deputy Inspector of
Schools'. If this is compared with the earlier superseded rules, both
these categories were treated under the same head.
6.3 The method of appointment in these different
categories is also defined statutorily. The same is quoted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos. 254 and 255 of 2022
hereinabove in para : 5.4. That would show that, the appointment
on the post of Deputy Inspector of Schools, which is statutorily
defined as different category then the Graduate Teacher, is made by
'transfer' from Category 2 i.e., from amongst the persons working in
the category of Graduate Teachers. All persons who are working as
Graduate Teachers can not be appointed on Deputy Inspector of
Schools. For this purpose, Rule 8 comes in play, which is already
quoted above.
6.4 The above would lead to a situation that the
persons who are working as Deputy Inspector of Schools, at one
stage would have worked as Graduate Teachers because that is the
'source category' from which they are appointed as Deputy
Inspector of Schools but all Graduate Teachers can not be
transferred and appointed as Deputy Inspector of Schools because
the further statutory requirement is provided under Rule 8, quoted
above.
6.5 Thus, the reading of Rule 11 regarding Transfer
and Postings as sought to be pressed into service on behalf of the
State needs to be weighed vis-a-vis the mode of appointment
provided under Rule 2 read with Rule 8 and it takes to a situation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos. 254 and 255 of 2022
that a Graduate Teacher who satisfies the condition under Rule 8
can be appointed as Deputy Inspector of Schools and since the
mode of appointment statutorily prescribed is by transfer, the word
'transfer' is used at the time of said appointment. The appointment
of Graduate Teachers therefore on the post of Deputy Inspector of
Schools, according to us, is the appointment as statutorily
prescribed and the word 'transfer' used at that time is to be
understood as the mode of appointment and not administrative
transfer.
6.6 Having held as above, we find that, when a
Deputy Inspector of Schools is attempted to be brought back as
Graduate Teacher, it needs to be examined what is the mode of
appointment provided for Graduate Teacher. As it is noted above,
appointment of Deputy Inspector of Schools is statutorily prescribed
by transfer, but the same is consciously absent in the mode of
appointment of Graduate Teacher. Therefore what is statutorily not
permitted, or in other words, what was interchangeable in the
earlier set of Rules is consciously deleted in the subsequent
statutory set of Rules, can not be read as administrative power of
the State. Though the Court would be very slow to interfere in the
administrative actions of the State, when it is pointed out that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos. 254 and 255 of 2022
said action is governed by statutory rule, in absence of that power,
the impugned action of the State, according to us, was without any
authority of law and was inconsistent with the notification dated 30
January 2020.
7.1 Having found as above, we have examined the
reasons recorded in the order under challenge. We find that, learned
Single Judge in para : 23 observed as under:-
“23. Let us now compare the current
Special Rules with the old Rules issued
vide G.O.Ms.No.753, Education
Department, dated 15.07.1985. As per
the old Rules also, the appointment to
the posts of Deputy Inspectors of
Schools and School Assistants may be
made by transfer from any Class or
Category in the service on an identical
scale of pay. Thus, it is made clear
that the word 'transfer' indicates that
it can be effected from the equivalent
categories, which all are
interchangeable carrying identical scale
of pay. .... .”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos. 254 and 255 of 2022
7.2 In para : 31, it is noted as under:-
“31. What is to be considered by this
Court is ... Therefore, the new Rule
cannot be interpreted as if the post of
Deputy Inspector of Schools is a
distinct category and ....”
7.3 The reasoning of learned Single Judge in
substance [vide para : 33] is to the effect that - “if the Rule
contemplates by transfer then it is to be made only by way of
transfer and the word 'transfer' indicates that the post of Deputy
Inspector of Schools and Graduate Teachers are interchangeable as
it is identical scale of pay.” This according to us, is erroneous
reading of the notification dated 30 January 2020. We further find
that, learned Single Judge was also swayed away by reasoning [vide
para :33] that “thus routine transfers between the post of Deputy
Inspector of Schools and Graduate Teachers are contemplated under
the special-rules and thus there is no infirmity in the circular issued
by the Joint Director”. We find that, learned Single Judge, with great
respect, fell in error in reading in the set of Rules, what is not
written.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos. 254 and 255 of 2022
8. On conjoint consideration of the above, we find
that, the action of the State was inconsistent with the provisions of
the notification and the learned Single Judge, while rejecting the
claim of the petitioners fell in error, which according to us, is error
apparent on the face of record and the same needs to be corrected
in these intra-court appeals, under Clause 15 of Letters Patent.
While doing so, we further hold that the State is well within its right
to transfer the appellants to any place as per administrative
requirement, but on the post of Deputy Inspector of Schools, which
is distinct category under statutory Rules and which they are
holding statutorily.
9.1 For the above reasons, the following order is
passed:-
9.2 These appeals are allowed.
9.3 The impugned order of learned Single Judge is
quashed and set aside.
9.4 The writ petitions are allowed and the impugned
orders in writ petitions i.e. the general directions contained in order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos. 254 and 255 of 2022
dated 06 January 2022 and consequential individual orders dated 07
January 2022 are quashed and set aside. It is noted that, by the
interim order on the writ petitions, those orders were already kept
in abeyance and have not been implemented at any point of time. It
is those orders which are set aside by this order.
9.5 No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions would not survive.
[P.U., J] [K.R., J]
25.03.2022
Index : Yes
ssm/10
To
1.The Commissioner of School Education,
O/o. Commissioner of School Education,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel),
O/o. The Joint Director of School Education,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
4.The Chief Educational Officer,
Theni District,
Theni.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos. 254 and 255 of 2022
5.The Chief Educational Officer,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
6.The Chief Educational Officer,
Kanyakumari District,
Kanyakumari.
7.The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
8.The Chief Educational Officer,
Karur District,
Karur.
9.The District Educational Officer,
O/o. District Educational Office,
Karur Taluk, Karur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos. 254 and 255 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
ssm
W.A(MD)Nos. 254 and 255 of 2022
25.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
