A.S. Sivaraman vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Natarajan, J.—This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of transfer, dated 8-11-1984, passed

by the third respondent and in order to quash the said order the petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of certiorari. The petitioner was appointed as a

teacher in Pernampet Panchayat Union School on 7-7-1967 and since then, he had been working in various Panchayat Union Schools situate

within the limits of Pernampet Panchayat Union. He was lastly working as an Assistant at Pugalur Panchayat Union Elementary School. As the

Headmaster of that school had gone on medical leave, the petitioner was officiating as in charge Headmaster of the school from 6-11-1984. While

so, by means of the Impugned order, the petitioner was transferred to the Panchayat Union school in Kalayarkoil Panchayat Union school in

Ramnad district. That school is said to be situate about 600 kms. away from the school, where the petitioner was working. The petitioner would

contend that the order of transfer is not only an unusual one, but also an abnormal one. It is the case of the petitioner that from the very inception,

the teachers employed in the Panchayat Union schools would be transferred only to schools within the limits of the Panchayat Union and in case a

transfer had to be effected on Inter-Panchayat Union basis, it would be effected only on the basis of mutual transfer. The situation continued to be

the same even after the Government declared the services of teachers in Panchayat Union schools to be Government servants. Furthermore, there

is a Government Order to the effect that the Government servants falling in the lower cadres of office should not be transferred to far away places.

The impugned order gives the reason for the transfer as ""public interest"". But there is no legal definition for the phrase ""public interest"" and as such,

there is no means of knowing the exact ground on which the order of transfer had been passed. Even assuming that considerations of public

interest have some relevance, the transfer of the petitioner cannot be justified, because the School wherein he was working was already under-

staffed and as such, his transfer would result in further depletion of strength of the teaching staff. The order of transfer is further rendered infirm by

the fact that it has been passed after the announcement of the General Elections even though there is a well settled practice that no Government

servant should be transferred after the announcement of the General Elections. Lastly, the petitioner has stated that the disputed transfer would

result in great loss and hardship to him, because he has to look after his aged mother and a small piece of land which he possesses. On all these

grounds the petitioner impugns the transfer order and prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the said order.

The writ petition was admitted and rule nisi was issued. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit, which has been sworn to by the third

respondent. Therein it is stated that the petitioner was transferred to a school at Kalayarkoil in Ramnad district, as per the confidential instructions

received from the Government. The disclosure of these instructions will be detrimental to public interest. But in order to satisfy the court, the

respondents are prepared to produce the confidential file relating to the petitioner before court for its scrutiny. The transfer was necessitated on

grounds of public interest and is in accordance with Governments Order contained in G.O.Ms. No. 857, Education, dated 23-5-1981. In similar

circumstances, another school Assistant was transferred and the aggrieved party challenged the order of transfer before the High Court in W.P.

12329 of 1984. The Government produced the records in that case and the court, after scrutinising them, was pleased to dismiss the writ petition

at the admission stage itself after ordering notice of motion. In another case, a teacher by name Ezhumalai was transferred on identical grounds and

the said teacher has obeyed transfer order and joined duty. On account of these factors, the petitioner is not entitled to assail the order of transfer

or to seek an order of stay till the disposal of the writ petition. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was also charge-sheeted

by the police of Gudiyatham town police station under S. 4 (1) (j) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, and under S. 75 of the Madras City Police

Act, and the case is pending disposal. In such circumstances, the respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. When the petition

was taken up for enquiry, the Additional Government pleader produced the confidential file relating to the transfer of the petitioner. On going

through the file, I find that the petitioner had been engaging himself in activities detrimental to public interest and it is with reference to these

activities, the Government have deemed it fit to transfer the petitioner to a far away school. It may be that the transfer is not to the liking of the

petitioner; but on that ground, be cannot say that the transfer is illegal and that, therefore, the transfer order should be struck down. There is no bar

in law for a teacher employed in a school situate within the limits of one Panchayat Union being transferred to a school which is within the limits of

another Panchayat Union May be, under ordinary and normal circumstances, transfers may be effected to schools situate within the limits of the

same Panchayat Union or to schools situate in nearby Panchayat Union areas. But when an extraordinary situation arises and when public interest

is involved, the Government and its Officers do have the requisite authority under law to effect transfers of school assistants to far away schools

even. An order of transfer made in such circumstances need not contain the reasons for the transfer. I do not therefore find any merit in the

contention of the petitioner that the transfer order is ex facie unwarranted and illegal and should therefore be quashed. As already stated, the order

of transfer has been made on grounds of public interest and the file contains materials disclosing the grounds for the respondents passing the

impugned order of transfer. In such circumstances, the petitioner has not made out any case for the rule being made absolute. The petition

therefore fails and will stand dismissed. No costs.