கண்ணகி போல் நீதிகேட்டு வென்ற ஆசிரியை சங்கீதா!- நீதியரசர் நாகமுத்து அவர்களின் முழுத்தீர்ப்பு
I started hearing this case on 15.07.2014 (that day the Advocates
were on court boycott). I found the petitioner a woman and a school
teacher appearing before me with the folded case bundle in her hands like
the anklet in the hands of Kannagi - the heroine of Silapathikaram, one of
the five great epics of Tamil Literature, her eyes filled with tears; she
declared in a meek voice, I have a complaint, where can I go except coming
to this Court which has a tradition of justice? Uphold justice and undo the
grave injustice done to me. I have been suffering for the past two years.
She placed point after point, like an experienced Advocate, exposing the
injustice caused to her. I was amazed. I consoled her and advised her to be
bold to fight against any injustice. The case was adjourned at the request
of the learned Government Advocate to get further instructions from the
respondents. I was extremely happy that the people, more particularly the
common man, have immense faith in the judiciary. The appearance of the
petitioner in person seeking justice and the narration of her woes and
sufferings is a caution to all the stakeholders in the justice delivery
system that Fail not to do timely justice.
2.Today, again she appeared. Her grievances are as follows:
The petitioner is presently working as B.T.Assistant in
Mathematics Subject at Government High School, Puluthipatti in Sivagangai
District. Her native place is Madurai District. Stating certain genuine
reasons, the petitioner submitted an application on 26.04.2012 seeking
transfer to any one of the schools in Madurai District. The said application
was entertained and she was permitted to participate in the transfer
counselling conducted by the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, on
24.07.2012. The petitioner had chosen the post of B.T.Assistant in
Mathematics Subject at Government High School at Tiruppalai in Madurai
District. The 7th respondent was previously working in Sevalpatti Government
High School, Trichy District. She also participated in the transfer
counselling. Since the petitioner being the senior, opted the post at
Government High School, Tiruppalai, Madurai District. It was accepted by the
Chief Educational Officer, Madurai and accordingly he issued an order of
transfer, to the petitioner, transferring her to Government High School at
Tiruppalai, as per order in Na.Ka.No.4938/A4/2012, dated 24.07.2012.
3.Having armed with the said order, when the petitioner
approached the Headmaster of the Government High School at Puluthipatti,
Sivagangai District, the petitioner was informed that there was no
instruction to relieve her. When she approached the Chief Educational
Officer, Sivagangai District, she was informed that from the Chief
Educational Officer, Madurai District, the order of transfer dated
24.07.2012, had not been received. As a result, the petitioner was not
relieved from Sivagangai District so as to enable her to join duty at the
Government High School at Tiruppalai in Madurai District.
4.While so, the Joint Director (Personnel), School Education
Department, Chennai-6, by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.32714/C3/E2/2012, dated
02.08.2012, transferred the 7th respondent from Government High School at
Sevalpatti, Tiruchirappalli District, to the Government High School at
Tiruppalai in Madurai District, as against the vacancy against which the
petitioner had earlier been transferred in the transfer counselling. Armed
with the said order of the Joint Director, the 7th respondent approached the
Chief Educational Officer, Madurai and the other officials and wanted to join
duty as B.T.Assistant in Mathematics in Government High School at Tiruppalai.
On knowing this, the petitioner raised objection in person. She also sent
telegrams and representations to various authorities. But, the same were not
considered. Instead, the 7th respondent was permitted to join duty at the
Government High School at Tiruppalai, as a result, the petitioner was neither
relieved from the Sivagangai District nor allowed to join duty at Tiruppalai
Government High School in Madurai District. She was, thus, forced to
continue to work in the Government High School at Puluthipatti in Sivagangai
District. Since all her efforts, by means of a number of representations to
the higher authorities, proved futile, she was forced to file the present
writ petition on 05.12.2012.
5.When this writ petition came up for hearing on 07.12.2012, the
learned Additional Government Pleader took notice for the respondents 1 to 3
and 5 and 6. The petitioner was directed to take out notice to the 7th
respondent. Accordingly, notice was take. On 05.07.2013, the writ petition
was admitted by this Court. Thereafter, the writ petition came-up for
hearing atleast for 10 hearings, on various dates.
6.The 3rd respondent has filed counter on 02.01.2013. In the
counter, the 3rd respondent has virtually blamed the petitioner for not
having reported for duty in the Government High School at Tiruppalai. The
crux of the counter is that it is true that the petitioner participated in
the transfer counselling and accordingly transfer order was issued by the 3rd
respondent as early as on 24.07.2012 itself, transferring her to the 6th
respondent school. But, the petitioner did not join at the transferred
school till 22.08.2012, i.e. for about 29 days. The counter further proceeds
to state as follows:
In normal practice the person who has been issued with the transfer
order should join to the concerned post within a week as per prevailing rules
and conditions. If the concerned person has not joined to the transfer post
within the time, he should intimate the same with the authorities concerned.
But the petitioner miserably failed to send any intimation to the officials
regarding the delay in joining the post at the 6th respondent school. .... IN
the meanwhile the 7th respondent who was working as B.T.Assistant
(Mathematics) at Government Higher Secondary School, Sevalpatti, Trichy
District, had approached the 6th respondent school with a transfer order as
well as the relieving order and therefore she was allowed to join.
7.The 7th respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that
narrating the family circumstances, she approached the Joint Director with a
request and considering her case the Joint Director had issued the transfer
order. Therefore, the 7th respondent has tried to justify her transfer to
the Government High School at Tiruppalai in Madurai District.
8.I have considered the above. In my considered opinion, the
counter of the 3rd respondent, I should say, with regret, is so reckless and
highly misleading. It is not as though the petitioner was responsible for
not reporting for duty at the transferred place. It is also not as though
the petitioner did not intimate the higher authorities that she was not
relieved by the School Headmaster where she was working. The fact remains
that she was not relieved by the Headmaster of Puluthipatti Government High
School in Sivagangai District, for which petitioner cannot be blamed. Even
now there is no explanation offered as to why the transfer order issued to
the petitioner was not duly intimated by the third respondent to the Chief
Educational Officer, Sivagangai District and the Headmaster of the Government
High School at Puluthipatti. I am sure, had it been intimated, certainly,
the Headmaster of the Government High School at Puluthipatti would have
relieved her so as to enable her to report for duty at the Government High
School at Tiruppalai. It was because of the fact that the order was not
communicated, the petitioner was not relieved and as a result she was not
able to report for duty. But, to the contrary, the petitioner is now blamed
in the counter of the 3rd respondent, which really deserves to be condemned.
9.Apart from that, the order dated 24.07.2012, issued by the
Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, transferring the petitioner to the
Government High School at Tiruppalai was not all cancelled. The moment the
said transfer order, dated 24.07.2012, was passed, the post of B.T.Assistant
(Mathematics) in the Government High School at Tiruppalai, was no more
vacant. When that be so, it is really surprising rather shocking that the
then Joint Director had transferred the 7th respondent to the Government High
School at Tiruppalai. A reading of the order passed by the Joint Director
would go to show that the Joint Director had no back file to transfer the
7th respondent. There is no reference also in the order as to whether the
same was made at the request of the 7th respondent or on any administrative
grounds. The order further states that the 7th respondent should be
immediately relieved from the Government High School at Sevalpatti but, she
should be allowed to report for duty at the Government High School at
Tiruppalai provided there was vacancy. This would only go to show that the
then Joint Director was not even aware of whether there was vacancy in the
Government High School at Tiruppalai or not. It is very strange that the
Joint Director, without even ascertaining as to whether there was any vacancy
at the Government High School at Tiruppalai and without even verifying
whether the said vacancy had been filled-up by means of transfer counselling,
has passed the order dated 02.08.2012, transferring the 7th respondent to the
6th respondent school, in an arbitrary manner. The 7th respondent, who was
not able to succeed in the transfer counselling has managed to get this
transfer order dated 02.08.2012, issued by the Joint Director. It is not
explained to me as to how the Joint Director could pass an order of transfer
when the vacancy had already been filled-up by the transfer counselling and
without even knowing the factual situation. It is because of this
transfer order, the petitioner has been put to turmoil and therefore the
blame now thown upon her in the counter is totally baseless and the same
deserves to be deprecated. The fact remains that the transfer ordered issued
to the petitioner is still in force. However, the 7th respondent has been
allowed to join duty.
10.When this writ petition came up for earing on 15.07.2014, the
petitioner, who appeared in person, projected her case expressing her
agonies. The present Chief Eduational Officer, Madurai, was also present in
Court. When he was questioned in the open Court as to how the Joint Director
could pass an order of transfer when the post had already been filled-up by
means of transfer counselling, by transferring the petitioner, he assured the
Court that he would get instruction from the Joint Director and report the
matter to this Court, today.
11.Today, when the matter was taken up, the petitioner was
present in person. She was not represented by her counsel, as today also
Court Boycott by the Advocates is going on. The present Chief Educational
Officer, Madurai, is also present. However there is no representation for
the 7th respondent and therefore I am not able to hear the stand of the 7th
respondent.
12.Today, the learned Special Government Pleader
Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, representing the respondents 1 to 6, would submit that
the present Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, has by his proceedings
Na.Ka.No.14328/A3/2012, dated 15.07.2014,transferred the petitioner to the
Government High School at Tiruppalai in Madurai District in tune with the
earlier order of transfer. He would further submit that the 7th respondent,
who has been all along allowed to work as B.T.Assistant in Mathematics in the
Government High School at Tiruppalai has now been transferred to the
Government Higher Secondary School in Kulamangalam in Madurai, by his
proceedings in Na.Ka.No.14328/A3/2012, dated 15.07.2014. The Chief
Educational Officer, Madurai, who is present in the Court would submit that
the 7th respondent has agreed for this transfer and she has got no grievance
regarding her transfer to the Government Higher Secondary School at
Kulamangalam.
13.The petitioner, who is present in person, would submit that
she would get relieved from the Government High School at Puluthipatti in
Sivagangai District within two days and join duty at the Government High
School at Tiruppalai in Madurai District, within next two days. The said
statement is recorded. In view of the above, no further adjudication is
required. Thus, the petitioner has succeeded in her fight for justice. I am
only hopeful that this kind of injustice would not be caused to anyone in
future by these officials.
Sent from my iPad
கருத்துகள் இல்லை:
கருத்துரையிடுக