Madras High Court
Grace Gnanamani vs The Director on 7 January, 2025
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
W.P(MD).No.20046 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ORDER RESERVED ON : 03.01.2025
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 07.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD).No.20046 of 2024
and WMP(MD).No.16997, 16999 & 18032 of 2024
Grace Gnanamani
Secondary Grade Teacher
Government Higher Secondary School for Hearing Impaired
Thattampatti Road
Soolakkaraimedu
Virudhunagar District ....Petitioner
Vs
1.The Director
Department of Welfare for Differently Abled Persons
No.5, Kamarajar Salai
Lady Wellington College Campus
Chennai 600 005
2.The Headmaster
Government Higher Secondary School for Hearing Impaired
Thattampatti Road
Soolakkaraimedu
Virudhunagar District
3.The Headmaster
Government Higher Secondary School for Hearing Impaired
Membalam
Thanjavur City
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
W.P(MD).No.20046 of 2024
4.The Headmaster
Government High School for Hearing Impaired
Pudukottai
5.Jesu Gifty Bala
Secondary Grade Teacher
Government High School for Hearing Impaired
Pudukottai
6.M.Bala
Secondary Grade Teacher
Government High School for Hearing Impaired
Pudukottai ....Respondents
Prayer : This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order
passed by the first respondent by his proceedings dated 06.08.2024 in
Na.Ka.No.6546536/CPaNir.1/2024 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.S.Palanivelrajan
Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Sasikumar
For Respondents :Mr.T.Amjadkhan
Government Advocate - R1 to R4
:Mr.G.Karthik for
M/s.Roy and Roy Associates – R5
ORDER
The instant writ petition has been filed by a Secondary Grade Teacher,
working in the Government Higher Secondary School for hearing impaired,
challenging the order of transfer dated 06.08.2024 issued by the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent transferring her from Virudhunagar to Pudukkottai.
2.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner had
challenged the order of transfer on the following grounds:
a)The transfer counselling for the year 2024 was conducted on
03.07.2024 and 04.07.2024. The petitioner was satisfied with the
place where she is working and she has not participated in the
transfer counselling. Therefore, there is no vacancy at Virudhunagar
School. However, in order to accommodate the fifth respondent, the
order of transfer has been issued.
b)The learned senior counsel had further contended that under
the impugned order of transfer, 11 teachers have been transferred. It
is not specifically pointed out whether it is on administrative reasons
or transfer on counselling. When the petitioner has not participated in
the transfer counselling, taking advantage of administrative grounds,
the petitioner has been transferred in order to accommodate the fifth
respondent.
c)The learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner had further
contended that the order of transfer has not been effected due to
administrative exigency or in public interest and therefore, it is liable
to be quashed. He had further pointed out that the petitioner was not
informed about the transfer counselling that is said to have been held
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
on 03.07.2024 and 04.07.2024. In such circumstances, after
screening transfer counselling from the eyes of the writ petitioner,
citing administrative grounds, the petitioner has been transferred to
accommodate the fifth respondent. Hence, he prayed for setting aside
the order of transfer insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
3.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
authorities had contended that the petitioner is not maintaining the cordial
relationship with the Headmaster and other staff members of the School at
Virudhunagar. The petitioner was issued with a memo on 16.02.2022 for not
properly maintaining the registers of the Hostel. However, the petitioner has
not given any reply. The petitioner has also not responded to a second memo
dated 03.02.2023. The Headmaster of the School has addressed a complaint
to the first respondent herein that the petitioner and her husband are creating
ruckus within the School Campus thereby disturbing the academic peace.
4.The learned Government Advocate had further contended that the
first respondent had issued a show cause notice on 11.07.2023 and
26.02.2024 for which reply was not furnished by the writ petitioner. That
apart, the petitioner has addressed a communication doubting the signature of
the first respondent. Therefore, another memo was issued to the writ
petitioner on 05.04.2024 directing him to appear for an enquiry on
10.04.2024. However, the petitioner has not appeared. Even when a copy of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the transfer order was attempted to be served upon the petitioner, she has
refused to receive the same. Therefore, on administrative grounds, in order to
maintain the academic peace within the School campus, the petitioner was
transferred from Virudhunagar to Pudukkottai.
5.The learned counsel for the fifth respondent had contended that as far
as transfer counselling is concerned, intimation was sent to all the Schools.
The petitioner after being aware of the transfer counselling, has opted not to
participate in the transfer counselling. He had further contended that he had
participated in the transfer counselling and expressed her whishes to get
accommodated at Virudhunagar. Two teachers from Virudhunagar have been
transferred to Pudukkottai and from Pudukkottai two other teachers have
been transferred to Virudhunagar. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner
that she was transferred only to accommodate the fifth respondent is not
factually correct. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
6.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused
the material records.
7.A careful perusal of the impugned transfer order dated 06.08.2024
reveals that 11 teachers working in various Schools have been transferred.
The order points out that the transfer is based on counselling as well as on
administrative grounds. Serial Nos. 1 to 6 in the said transfer order have
participated in the counselling. Serial Nos. 7 to 11 have been transferred on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
administrative grounds. The transfer order further reveals that not only the
petitioner, but another teacher namely Mr.M.Bala have also been transferred
from Virudhunagar School to Pudukkottai. Therefore, the contention of the
petitioner that she has been transferred only to accommodate the fifth
respondent is not factually correct.
8.The first respondent had issued a circular on 23.06.2024 to all the
teachers working in the Special Schools to appear for transfer counselling on
03.07.2024 and 04.07.2024. It is not known how the petitioner alleges that
she was not aware of such a circular. The petitioner may be right in
contending that she opted out of the transfer counselling on her own choice.
Therefore, the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the writ
petitioner that transfer counselling was not brought to the notice of the writ
petitioner is not legally sustainable.
9.A perusal of the typed set of papers filed by the authorities reveal that
several memos, show cause notices have been issued as against the writ
petitioner by the Headmaster of the School as well as by the Director. The
petitioner has not chosen to reply to any one of those show cause notices. On
the other hand, the petitioner has raised a doubt over the signature of the
Director, in one of the show cause notices and sought permission from the
Directorate to approach the Court doubting the signature. The records further
reveal that the petitioner was not maintaining cordial relationship with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Headmaster and other staff members of the School at Virudhunagar. The
petitioner's husband was also getting involved himself in the administration
of the School and it is alleged that he used to threaten the Headmaster of the
School. That apart when transfer order was served upon the writ petitioner,
she has refused to receive the same. Though it was sent to her through post,
the same has been returned as 'refused'.
10.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2004) 4
SCC 245 (Union of India and others Vs. Janardhan Debanath and
another) in Paragraph No.14 has held as follows:
“14......For the purposes of effecting a transfer, the question of
holding an enquiry to find out whether there was misbehaviour or
conduct unbecoming of an employee is unnecessary and what is
needed is the prima facie satisfaction of the authority concerned on
the contemporary reports about the occurrence complained of and if
the requirement, as submitted by learned counsel for the respondents,
of holding an elaborate enquiry is to be insisted upon the very
purpose of transferring an employee in public interest or exigencies
of administration to enforce decorum and ensure probity would get
frustrated....”
11. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that
in order to maintain harmony and academic peace, the authorities were right
in exercising their powers in effecting transfer on the ground of
administrative exigency.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12.In view of the above said deliberations, this Court does not find any
merits in the writ petition and the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
07.01.2025.
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
To
1.The Director
Department of Welfare for Differently Abled Persons
No.5, Kamarajar Salai
Lady Wellington College Campus
Chennai 600 005
2.The Headmaster
Government Higher Secondary School for Hearing Impaired
Thattampatti Road
Soolakkaraimedu
Virudhunagar District
3.The Headmaster
Government Higher Secondary School for Hearing Impaired
Membalam
Thanjavur City
4.The Headmaster
Government High School for Hearing Impaired
Pudukottai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
W.P.(MD).No.20046 of 2024 and
WMP(MD).No.16997, 16999 &
18032 of 2024
07.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
