Madras High Court
T.Babu Selvan vs The Director Of School Education on 7 January, 2025
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
W.P(MD).No.21382 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.21382 of 2024
and WMP(MD).No.18092, 18093 & 19241 of 2024
T.Babu Selvan ....Petitioner
Vs
1.The Director of School Education
Office of the Director of School Education
College Road, DPI Complex
Chennai
2.The Chief Educational Officer
Office of Chief Educational Officer
Kokkirakulam
Tirunelveli
3.The District Educational Officer
Office of District Educational Officer
Thirunagar, Tirunelveli Town
Tirunelveli ...Respondents
Prayer : This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the
impugned order of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.043536/W1/E2/2024
dated 27.08.2024 and quash the same and consequently direct the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
W.P(MD).No.21382 of 2024
respondents to revert back the petitioner to the Government Higher
Secondary School, Parappadi.
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Arumugam
For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheeshkumar
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The instant writ petition has been filed by a Headmaster of the
Government Higher Secondary School, challenging the order of transfer
dated 27.08.2024.
2.The petitioner herein was working as a Headmaster of Government
Higher Secondary School, Parappadi, Tirunelveli District and an order of
transfer was issued on 09.08.2024, transferring him from Perappadi to
Valliyoor in Tirunelveli District. The order of transfer reflected certain
allegations as against the writ petitioner. Hence, the petitioner had challenged
the same in WP(MD).No.20194 of 2024. When the writ petition was pending,
the authorities have cancelled the said order. Recording the same, the writ
petition was closed on 28.08.2024.
3.The respondent authorities had issued the impugned transfer order on
27.08.2024 reiterating the same transfer, after deleting the allegations as
against the writ petitioner. The impugned transfer order reveals that the order
is on administrative grounds. The transfer order further reflected that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
transfer would come into effect from 09.08.2024, the date on which the
original transfer order was issued. The said order is under challenge in the
present writ petition.
4.According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, though the
impugned transfer order is dated 27.08.2024, it has been given retrospective
effect from 09.08.2024. Therefore, 09.08.2024 order which reflected certain
allegations seems to have been revived. He had further contended that only
based upon the original transfer order dated 09.08.2024, the petitioner had
joined the transferred post on 23.08.2024 under the compulsion of the
authorities. Therefore, the present impugned order has been issued with
retrospective effect in order to ratify all those actions.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the
petitioner was transferred to Valliyoor which post was occupied by one
Tmt.Sumathy till 20.08.2024. Therefore, when retrospective effect is granted
to the transfer order with effect from 09.08.2024, there would not be any
vacancy in Valliyoor. He had further contended that even though the present
transfer order points out that the transfer is on administrative reasons, the
specific reasons have not been reflected.
6.The learned counsel had relied upon a judgment of this Court
reported in 2006 (3) CTC 552 (S.Pitchai Arockiyam Vs. The District
Elementary Educational Officer, Karur District @ Karur and another)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
wherein this Court has held that where a transfer order is effected on
administrative exigency, the reason for such administrative transfer has to be
recorded. In the present case, no such recording has been made. Hence, he
prayed for allowing the writ petition.
7.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
the respondents had contended that since the original order of transfer dated
09.08.2024 reflected certain allegations as against the writ petitioner, the said
order was cancelled and a fresh order of transfer has been issued on
administrative grounds. Merely because the transfer order is to take effect
from 09.08.2024, the petitioner's service condition or seniority would not get
affected. When the petitioner is not likely to be affected by the impugned
order of transfer dated 27.08.2024, there is no cause of action for the
petitioner to challenge the same. He had further contended that the petitioner
as well as Tmt.Sumathy were relieved only on 20.08.2024. The petitioner had
joined duty at Valliyoor on 23.08.2024. Therefore, even if the order of
transfer is dated 09.08.2024, the relieving order would play a vital role in
deciding the date of joining. Hence, there is no infirmity in the order of
transfer impugned in the writ petition.
8.The learned Additional Government Pleader had further contended
that the petitioner is an office bearer of the Headmasters' Association and he
is trying to point out some technical defects, without pointing out any legal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
grievance to set aside the order of transfer. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of
the writ petition.
9.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused
the material records.
10.The impugned order of transfer dated 27.08.2024 is challenged
primarily on the ground that it has been given retrospective effect from
09.08.2024 onwards. It is true that the initial order of transfer dated
09.08.2024 revealed certain allegations as against the writ petitioner for
issuing an order of transfer. When this Court pointed out that such a transfer
order is punitive in nature, the authorities have chosen to cancel the said
order on 27.08.2024 and the writ petition was closed on 28.08.2024.
11.The present impugned order points out that the order of transfer is
only on administrative grounds, but, it is to take effect from 09.08.2024. As
rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader, merely
because the order points out that the transfer will take effect from 09.08.2024,
the petitioner cannot have any legal grievance whatsoever. His seniority or
service condition are not going to be affected. In fact, the present impugned
transfer order dated 27.08.2024 only substitutes the order dated 09.08.2024
after deleting the offending portion, namely the allegations as against the writ
petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12.Unless the order of transfer is to take effect from 09.08.2024, the
joining of the writ petitioner at the transferred post on 23.08.2024 cannot be
justified. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that
merely because the previous transfer order was cancelled on some technical
grounds, the issuance of fresh transfer order (after deleting the allegations)
cannot be called into question.
13.When both the writ petitioner as well as Tmt.Sumathy were relieved
from their respective places only on 20.08.2024 and the petitioner had joined
in the transferred post on 23.08.2024, the petitioner cannot contend that there
was no vacancy at Valliyoor on 09.08.2024. Therefore, such a submission is
liable to be rejected.
14.When a transfer order is being issued on administrative grounds, no
reason be assigned to the said transfer order and it is only based upon
administrative exigency. The petitioner has not alleged any malafides or lack
of jurisdiction as against the respondent authorities in passing the order of
transfer. Therefore, in such circumstances, the authorities are not expected to
assign any specific reason in cases of transfer due to administrative exigency.
15.The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon a judgment of
this Court reported in 2006 (3) CTC 552 (S.Pitchai Arockiyam Vs. The
District Elementary Educational Officer, Karur District @ Karur and
another) wherein G.O.Ms.No.110 dated 18.08.2004 has been relied upon. A
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
perusal of the said Government Order reveals that the administrative transfers
can be made only when complaints have been enquired into by the competent
authority and when disciplinary action is proposed to be taken on prima facie
evidence. In the present case, the allegations as against the writ petitioner
were reflected in the original transfer order, but they were deleted in the
present impugned order. That apart, as per the said Government Order, the
reasons for administrative transfer has to be recorded only in the relevant file
and need not be reflected in the transfer order. Therefore, the contention of
the writ petitioner that the administrative reason has not been mentioned in
the transfer order is not a ground that would vitiate the order of transfer.
16.Considering the fact that the petitioner is working as an Headmaster
at Parappadi for more than three years and no malafides are alleged as against
the authorities in passing the order of transfer, this Court does not find any
reason to interfere in the order of transfer. There are no merits in the writ
petition. 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
msa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Director of School Education
Office of the Director of School Education
College Road, DPI Complex
Chennai
2.The Chief Educational Officer
Office of Chief Educational Officer
Kokkirakulam
Tirunelveli
3.The District Educational Officer
Office of District Educational Officer
Thirunagar, Tirunelveli Town
Tirunelveli
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
and WMP(MD).No.18092, 18093 &
19241 of 2024
07.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
