IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.02.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.2553 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 S.Rajaveni ... Petitioner Vs 1.The District Elementary Education Officer, Villupuram. 2.The Additional Deputy Elementary Education Officer, Olakkur, Tindivanam. 3.The District Collector, Villupuram. ... Respondents PRAYER:-Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents to pay the salary and other benefits to the petitioner regularly. For petitioner : Mr.V.Ajaykumar For Respondents : Mrs.E.Renganayaki,G.A.(Edn) O R D E R Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to pay the salary and other benefits regularly and pass such other order as may be necessary in the circumstances of the case. 3. In the writ petition, notice was directed to be taken by the respondents. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit dated 10.04.2008. Mrs.E.Renganayaki, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents also circulated the original file relating to the present case. 4. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner subsequent to the filing of the present writ petition also filed another writ petition being W.P.No.13100 of 2008. Therefore, the records relating to the said case was also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ summoned. In that case, the petitioner sought to challenge the order of transfer dated 03.03.2008. By the order dated 03.03.2008, the District Elementary Educational Officer, Villupuram in view of job security given to Teacher and there being no economic strength in the school in which the petitioner was employed, she was transferred as a Primary School Headmistress at Olakkur Panchayat Union, Melsiviri (Hindu) Aided Primary School. Pursuant to the re-deployment of the petitioner along with her post, she did not join duty. On the contrary, when the matter came up on 25.02.2009, she withdrew her writ petition. In the affidavit filed in support of the second writ petition, the petitioner made a passing remarks about her having filed the earlier writ petition, but without disclosing the details of the said case. This conduct of the petitioner is highly reprehensible. The petitioner make attempts to secure orders by filing more than one writ petition on the same subject. 5. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was appointed as a Headmistress in Sri Karapaga Vinayaka Aided Elementary School, Tindivanam on 16.06.1981 and she worked till 05.06.2007. The school is a non-minority school and it was governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973 and the Rules framed thereunder. The school had three posts of teachers including an Headmistress. The school did not have the economic strength and hence, two secondary grade Teachers posts along with the Teachers were transferred to the needy schools during December 2001 and November 2002. Thereafter, the school became a single teacher school remaining with the post of Headmaster alone. 6. Finally, it was found that during the year 2006-2007, even the minimum strength of 20 were not maintained and this necessitated the petitioner being transferred to some other school along with her post. The Management of the school did not take any steps to improve the students strength. However, the petitioner was receiving salary till May 2007. Even after the reopening of the school during June 2007, the strength of the students did not improve and it had only 4 students. When the authorities visited the school it had only 4 students and it had been closed for many days. It was because of this the school was closed and not functioning from 06.06.2007. The matter was taken to the knowledge of the Director of Elementary Education, Chennai for necessary instructions and orders. 7. In the mean time, the petitioner had sent a representation dated 18.10.2007 expressing her willingness to work as a Secondary Grade Teacher or Headmaster if she was transferred to some other school. The same was also brought to the notice of the Director of Elementary Education, Chennai for orders. By proceedings dated 24.12.2007, a direction was given by the Director of Elementary Education to transfer her to some other school. It was only under these circumstances, her transfer order came to be made on 03.03.2008. In view of the closure of the school, the teaching grant was stopped. The photographs found in the file shows that the school https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was closed and it does not show any visible activities of a school. Therefore, it was prayed that the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted. 8. The original file produced by the Department shows that the petitioner was permitted to retire on 31.01.2009 and subsequently, she got pension by the proceedings of the Accountant General and she had also received the terminal benefits on 28.07.2009. It is most unfortunate that the petitioner notwithstanding the closure of the school managed to stay in the same school inspite of the fact that there has been no economic strength in respect of the said school. She had not only challenged the re-deployment order without any justification but subsequently she withdrew it for the reasons best known to her. 9. In this writ petition, when the matter was listed, the learned counsel stated that she is willing to withdraw the writ petition on seeing the fact that the petitioner being paid the pension. Even this information, the petitioner got only after looking into the Government file. In any event, the conduct of the petitioner cannot be appreciated. The fact that the State Government did not have any obligation to provide employment in respect of private school Teacher, as an ameliorative measure, it had introduced the redeployment scheme. Once the students strength goes down then there is no obligation for the State to provide any grant to those schools. 10. In the light of the above, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court. Though this Court was inclined to order costs, but having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the petitioner had retired from service, this Court waives the imposition of costs. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar /true copy / Sub Asst.Registrar svki To 1.The District Elementary Education Officer, Villupuram. 2.The Additional Deputy Elementary Education Officer, Olakkur, Tindivanam. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The District Collector, Villupuram. + 1 cc to Mr.V.Ajaykumar,Advocate,SR.10892 + 1 cc to Government Pleader,SR.11300 W.P.No.2553 of 2008 JP(CO) EM/24.2.10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/