← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/20503/2016dismissed

M.Shanmugaiah, S/O.Moohaiah v. The Joint Director Of

2016-10-24Honourable Dr. Justice S. Vimala3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COUT DATED : 24.10.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.VIMALA W.P(MD)No.20503 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.14681 of 2016 M.Shanmugaiah ... Petitioner vs.

1.The Joint Director of School Education, Department of School Education, Chennai - 06.

2.The District Educational Officer, Usilampatti, 3.The Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Ezhumalai, 4.The Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, T.Ramanathapuram, ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in P.V.No.2866/A1/2016, dated 23.09.2016 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to replace the petitioner in the same 3rd respondent school.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Seemaraj For Respondents : Mr.M.Murugan Government Advocate

ORDER

The petitioner is challenging the order of his transfer from Government Higher Secondary School, Ezhumalai to Government Higher Secondary School, T.Ramanathapuram.

2.According to the petitioner, he went on medical leave from 27.09.2016 to 21.10.2016. The 3rd respondent also sanctioned the

medical leave to the petitioner. While the petitioner was on medical leave, the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 23.09.2016 transferring him to 4th respondent school. Further, according to him, the impugned order is antedated and the same was served on him only on 13.10.2016 and hence, the transfer order is illegal.

3.Learned Government Advocate would submit that the place to which the petitioner is transferred is only 7 kms from the original place and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that one Kannan with tainted hands has been transferred to the place at which petitioner had been working. This contention can not be considered, as that is not the, subject matter of the writ petition.

5.When there is no allegation of malafides or extraneous considerations, the transfer order cannot be challenged, more especially when the order is not punitive. This writ petition has no merits and hence it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. 6.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner intends to submit a representation to the 2nd respondent to re-transfer him to the 3rd respondent school on health ground.

7.In the circumstances, it is open to the petitioner to submit a representation to re-transfer him to the 3rd respondent school on the ground alleged. In the event of receiving any such representation, the second respondent is directed to consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar sj To 1.The Joint Director of School Education, Department of School Education, Chennai - 06.

2.The District Educational Officer, Usilampatti,

3.The Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Ezhumalai, 4.The Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, T.Ramanathapuram, +1cc to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No. 63295 JAM/12.12.16/PV/3p-6c W.P(MD)No.20503 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.14681 of 2016 24.10.2016