Madras High Court
C.N. Annadurai vs The Director Of Collegiate Education on 8 January, 2015
Bench: Satish K. Agnihotri, M. Venugopal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-01-2015 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL W.A.Nos.1732 and 1733 of 2014 1. C.N. Annadurai 2. M. Muthulakshmi Appellants in W.A.1732/2014 1. M. Muthulakshmi Appellant in W.A.1733/2014 Vs 1. The Director of Collegiate Education DPI Compound College Road, Chennai 600 006 2. The Principal (In-charge) Arignar Anna Government Arts College Athoor Salem District 3. The Secretary to Government Education Department Fort St. George Chennai 600 009 Respondents Writ Appeals under Section 15 of Letter Patent against the order passed in W.P.Nos.25756 and 25757 of 2013 dated 12-09-2013. For appellants Mr. E. Pragasam For respondents Mr. D. Krishna Kumar, SplG.P.(Edn) COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court is made by SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI,J.) One Thiru. C.N. Annadurai, and his wife, viz., Thirumathi. M. Muthulakshmi, both Assistant Professors in English Department, Arignar Anna Government Arts College, Athoor were transferred wide separate orders in Na.Ka.Nos.27286/C2/2013 1 and 27286/C2/2013 2 dated 03-09-2013 to Government Arts College for Men and Government Arts College for Women, Kumbakonam against vacant place. Being aggrieved, they came up with the instant petitions being W.P.No.25756 of 2013 and W.P.No.25757 of 2013 respectively, questioning the legality and validity of the said transfer orders. Both the writ petitions were heard and decided by a common order dated 12-09-2013, dismissing the same. Thereagainst, the instant writ appeals, W.A.Nos.1732 and 1733 of 2014 respectively are filed and as such both the writ appeals involving common questions of law are being considered and decided by this order.
2. Challenge before the writ court was primarily on the ground that the transfer order was passed with mala fide intention to punish the petitioners on the ground that a dispute between the writ petitioners and one Ramsankar took place. The said Ramsankar was an aggressor and the petitioners were victims and as such, the impugned transfer orders were not on account of the administrative exigency, but with mala fide intention to punish the writ petitioners also. The writ Court, having recorded the finding that since both the petitioners and the said Ramsankar have been transferred, held that the contention of the petitioners that it was with a sole object to punish the petitioners was not correct and the order was passed in administrative exigency and dismissed the writ petitions.
3. Mr. E. Pragasam, learned counsel appearing for the appellants (writ petitioners) would submit that in such an event where the petitioners were victims of the aggression made by one Ramsankar , the petitioners ought to have been protected and the said Ramsankar should have been transferred to some other place. The impugned transfer orders are punitive and deserve to be quashed.
4. We have examined all the relevant documents, pleadings and orders, carefully. In order to maintain a congenial, serene atmosphere in the college, it is proper to have teachers who are in good terms and are not having warring relations. It appears that and as also contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that in such a situation in order to maintain peaceful and congenial atmosphere in the educational institution. It was thought proper to transfer all the parties to the disputes in administrative exigency, and as such, there was no mala fide either on facts or in law. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the State that the Court must exercise restrain in interfering with the transfer order passed in administrative exigency unless the same is established and proved that the impugned transfer order passed is mala fide or in violation of statutory rules and regulations or by an incompetent officer. We have examined this aspect also. It is not the case of the petitioner that the authority passing the order was not competent or the orders were passed in breach of the statutory rules and regulations. The petitioners have also failed to establish that there was any mala fide intention in passing the order.
5. We are therefore, of the considered view that the impugned orders were passed in administrative exigency warranting no intereference. Thus the impugned order passed by the Writ Court is upheld. The writ appeals are dismissed.
(S.K.A.J.) (M.V.,J.) 08-01-2015 glp To 1. The Director of Collegiate Education DPI Compound College Road, Chennai 600 006 2. The Principal (In-charge) Arignar Anna Government Arts College Athoor Salem District 3. The Secretary to Government Education Department Fort St. George Chennai 600 009 SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. and M. VENUGOPAL, J. glp W.A.Nos.1732 and 1733 of 2014 08-01-2015