Counselling for transfer merely a concession not right: Madras HC
The judge made this ruling on hearing a petition filed by B Jamuna, a headmistress of a government high school in Pallipattu, Thiruvallur district.
CHENNAI: Observing that the concessions and facilities are provided only for the purpose of efficient public administration and not for providing absolute rights in the matter of transfers, the Madras High Court rejected a petition filed by the headmistress for calling her to the special counselling for transfer before May 31, 2022.
“The petitioner cannot claim any right in respect of transfer and postings and further, counselling being a concession, cannot be claimed as a matter of right, ” Justice SM Subramaniam held.
The judge made this ruling on hearing a petition filed by B Jamuna, a headmistress of a government high school in Pallipattu, Thiruvallur district. The petitioner prayed for a direction from the court to the director, the school education department to implement an order passed by the HC on March 15 asking the department to call the petitioner for a special transfer counselling before May 31, 2022.
When the matter was taken up, the judge held that seeking a direction to implement the earlier orders of the court cannot be granted in another writ petition.
The judge further held that certain government orders in the matter of promotion, seniority or relating to service conditions were issued in consonance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act.
“All other instructions issued in the matter of transfer and posting would not get the approval of statutory enforceability. Such instructions or guidelines are issued for the subordinate authorities to implement the instructions given by the higher authorities and violation of such instructions may provide circumstances for an employee to submit a complaint against the authority for initiation of action, but certainly not the Writ Petition for the High Court to interfere and adjudicate the disputes in such matters, ” the judge noted.
The government advocate submitted that there is no vacancy for the headmistress position while other litigants who got a favourable judgement on March 15 are teachers and find solutions in the counselling.
However, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that there is a vacancy for the post of headmistress that would fall in a government higher secondary school in Thiruvottiyur at May end.
The judge rejected the submission of the petitioner stating that the court cannot interfere in the routine administration of the government and such interference is absolutely not contemplated to exercise the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.