Madras High Court
T.Sulochanan vs The Secretary To Government on 27 February, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.A.(MD)No.1088 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.A.(MD)No.1088 of 2022
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.8685 of 2022
1.T.Sulochanan
2.Shreenadh ... Appellants / Writ Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Elementary Education,
Secretariat, Chepauk,
Chennai - 5.
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai.
3.The District Collector,
Kanyakumari District,
Nagercoil.
4.The Chief Educational Officer,
Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.
5.The District Educational Officer,
Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 03:51:56 pm )
W.A.(MD)No.1088 of 2022
6.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Kuzhithurai Range, Kuzhithurai,
Kanyakumari District.
7.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Kuzhithurai Range, Kuzhithurai,
Kanyakumari District.
8.The Headmaster,
Government Primary School,
Orunooranvayal, Arumanai Post,
Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow
the writ appeal by setting aside the order dated 22.07.2022 passed in
W.P.(MD)No.14325 of 2010 on the file of this Court.
For Appellants : No appearance
For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjadkhan,
Govt. Advocate.
JUDGMENT
None appears for the appellants.
2.Instead of dismissing the writ appeal for default, we propose to
pass an order on merits. Only a civil appeal has to be dismissed for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 03:51:56 pm )
default, if the appellant or the appellant's counsel do not turn up. The
same approach need not be adopted in the case of letter patent appeals.
3.The writ petitioners are husband and son of the deceased
Remani. She was working as Headmistress in the Government Primary
School, Orunooranvayal. It is stated to be located in an inhospitable
terrain. The case of the writ petitioners is that Remani passed away on
account of difficult working conditions. She had earlier requested for
transfer and if the transfer application dated 13.08.2008 had been
favourably considered, she would not have died on 13.01.2009. The
petitioners therefore demanded compensation from the Government. The
learned Single Judge in our view rightly dismissed the writ petition. In
fact, in our view, exemplary cost should have been imposed for filing
such a frivolous writ petition. Admittedly, the death was due to natural
cause. A government servant is obliged to work in any station where he
or she is directed to work. If Remani had some difficulty, she could have
resigned. No body compelled her to work in that particular station.
Paragraph Nos.11 to 15 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge
are as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 03:51:56 pm )
“11.A perusal of the promotion order dated 09.11.2007
indicates that the deceased teacher has been promoted as a
Headmistress and appointed to a Government Primary School which
is located in a hilly area. While the said teacher was alive, she has
sent a request on 13.08.2008 requesting that she may be demoted as
Secondary Grade Teacher and be appointed in any School within the
Kuzhithurai Educational limit. In the said request, she had
specifically stated that only after appointing in the Primary School
as a Headmistress, she came to know that the School is lacking in
basic amenities. Hence, it is clear that the allegation in the present
writ petition that the respondents authorities have posted the writ
petitioner to the said School with a malafide intention is not factually
correct. On the other hand, the said teacher has chosen the School
on her own volition on being promoted as a Headmistress.
12.The request of the teacher for demoting her was made on
13.08.2008. It was not a simple request for demotion, but she
requested the authorities to post her in Kuzhithurai Educational
Zone. Hence, this is a request for transfer in the middle of the
academic year. Normally such requests are entertained only at the
fag end of the academic year. However, a request for demotion has to
be considered by the higher authorities and the consequence of the
demotion has to be worked out. Therefore, we cannot find fault with
the authorities for not immediately taking action on the request of the
said teacher for demotion and transfer.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 03:51:56 pm )
13.The first petitioner has further complained that his wife
was forced to travel nearly 40 kilometer every day to reach the
School and this has resulted in deterioration of her health and it
resulted in heart attack and ultimately she passed away. The first
petitioner's wife has participated in the promotion counselling and
she has chosen the said place on her own volition. There is no proof
whatsoever that she was compelled to choose the said School. That
apart, being a Government Servant, transfer is an incident of service
and the teacher cannot make any complaint that she is being posted
to a hilly terrain. In fact, the said School has been opened for the
welfare of the Tribal children. It is also not the case of the writ
petitioners that she was already posted to a School in a hilly terrain
and continuously she is being posted to such a place. Hence, posting
of a Government servant in a hilly terrain for a particular period of
time cannot be considered to be a harassment or a punishment,
especially when she is promoted and posted as Headmistress of the
said Primary School.
14.The lack of basic amenities and infrastructure facilities in
the School have been there for so many years. As per contention of
the respondents authorities, the School has also been upgraded in the
year 2008-2009 thereby indicating that the School has got proper
infrastructure facilities. The lack of infrastructure facilities cannot be
cited as a ground for not accepting appointment to a particular place
assuming that the School lacks certain basic amenities.
15.Viewed from any angle, the unfortunate death of the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 03:51:56 pm )
petitioner's wife has happened due to natural causes and it cannot in
any way be attributed to her posting in a particular School. When the
Government authorities cannot be found fault with for the posting of
the first petitioner's wife, they cannot be held responsible for the
unfortunate death of the first petitioner's wife. It is brought to the
notice of the Court that all the terminal benefits have been disbursed.
The respondents authorities are also regularly paying the family
pension to the husband of the deceased teacher.”
4.We are satisfied that the learned Single Judge was fully justified
in dismissing the writ petition. Interference with the said order is not
warranted and the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(G.R.S. J.,) & (M.J.R. J.,)
27.02.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 03:51:56 pm )
To:-
1.The Secretary to Government,
Elementary Education,
Secretariat, Chepauk,
Chennai - 5.
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai.
3.The District Collector,
Kanyakumari District,
Nagercoil.
4.The Chief Educational Officer,
Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.
5.The District Educational Officer,
Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.
6.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Kuzhithurai Range, Kuzhithurai,
Kanyakumari District.
7.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Kuzhithurai Range, Kuzhithurai,
Kanyakumari District.
8.The Headmaster,
Government Primary School,
Orunooranvayal, Arumanai Post,
Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 03:51:56 pm )
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
and
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ias
27.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 03:51:56 pm )
