1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD).Nos.6534, 6549 and 10903 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).Nos.1 and 1 of 2011 M.Kalaiselvi ... Petitioner in all Wps -Vs- The District Educational Officer, Madurai. ... R-1 in WPs 6534 /2011 R-2 in WP 6549/2011 The Director of School Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006. ... R-1 in WP 6549/2011 The District Elementary Educational Officer, Madurai. ... R1 in WP(MD)No.10903/2011 R-2 in WPs 6534, 10903/2011 R-3 in WP 6549/2011 The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Madurai South, South Tower Street, Madurai. ... R-3 in WP 6534/2011 R2 in WP.No.10903/2011 The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. ... R-4 in WP 6549/2011 Sourashtra Higher Secondary School, Represented by its Correspondent, Madurai. ... R3 in WP.No.10903/2011 R-4 in WP 6534/2011 R-5 in WP 6549/2011 The Headmaster, Sourashtra Higher Secondary School, Madurai. ... R-6 in WP 6549/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Sourashtra Primary School, Represented by its Manager and Correspondent, Madurai-1. ... R-5 in WPs 6534/2011 R-7 in WP 6549/2011 R4 in WP.No.10903/2011 P.Vairavakumar ... R-6 in WP 6534/2011 R-8 in WP 6549/2011 R5 in WP.No.10903/2011 W.P.No.6534/2011: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the fifth respondent dated 9.2.2011 in No.Nil and quash the same. W.P.No.10903/2011: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the fourth respondent from preventing the petitioner from doing her work as Secondary Grade Teacher in the fourth respondent-School. W.P.No.6549/2011: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 4 to take action on the petitioner's complaint dated 11.3.2011 and 4.5.2011 and conduct enquiry on the same. *** For Petitioner in all WPs : Mr.M.Saravanan For R-1 to 3 in WP 6534/2011, R-1 to R-4 in WP 6549/2011: Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, & R-1&2 in WP 10903/2011 Government Advocate. For R-4 & 5 in WP 6534/2011, R-5 to R-7 in WP 6549/2011: Mr.M.Vallinayagam. & R-3&4 in WP 10903/2011 For R-6 in WP 6534/2011, :No appearance R-8 in WP 6549/2011 : Mr.C.Arunmozhi Rajashankar & R-5 in WP 10903/2011 C O M M O N O R D E R The petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the Sourashtra Higher Secondary School, on 23.9.2002. By an order dated 9.2.2011, she was transferred to the Sourashtra Primary School, as a Secondary Grade Teacher, in a vacancy created on the retirement of one Rupa K.Lalitha. Assailing the transfer order, the petitioner has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 come up with W.P.No.6534 of 2011. 2. After the order of transfer, the petitioner gave complaint on 11.3.2011 to the management, alleging sexual harassment against another co-teacher P.Vairavakumar. Contending that the management failed to take any action against him, the petitioner came up with the second writ petition W.P.No.6549 of 2011, seeking a Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to take action on her complaint. 3. In the Primary School, the petitioner reported for duty on 10.2.2011, but went on leave. After being on medical leave for 6 months, the petitioner joined duty on 16.8.2011. Thereafter alleging that she was not permitted to function, the petitioner came up with the third writ petition W.P.No.10903 of 2011, seeking a Mandamus to forbear the respondent from preventing her from discharging duties as a Secondary Grade Teacher. 4. In all the 3 writ petitions, the teacher against whom the petitioner complained of sexual harassment is impleaded as a respondent. While in the first writ petition, he is the sixth respondent, in the next two writ petitions, he is arrayed as respondents 8 and 5 respectively. Service of notice on him is also complete. He has not appeared. His name is printed in the cause list. 5. The management has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the management has raised various contentions, into which I need not go, in view of the nature of the disposal that could be given to all the three writ petitions. 6. In so far as the first writ petition is concerned, it has become infructuous in view of the fact that the petitioner has joined duty in the Sourashtra Primary School in pursuance of the transfer order. Not only has she joined duty, but she has also come up with the third writ petition to enable her to continue in the transferred school. Therefore, the prayer in the third writ petition runs counter to the prayer in the first writ petition. Hence W.P.No.6534 of 2011 is dismissed. 7. In so far as the third writ petition is concerned, the grievance of the petitioner is that the management did not refer the petitioner to Medical Board. Consequently the Medical Board refused to examine her. But according to the management, the petitioner had obtained a stay of the transfer order, on account of which they were afraid of permitting the petitioner to join duty in the new school. 8. In other words, the management has no objection to the petitioner working as Secondary Grade Teacher in the transferred school. Therefore, W.P.No.10903 of 2011 is disposed of, permitting the petitioner to join duty and to continue to discharge the duties of a Secondary Grade Teacher in the Sourashtra Primary School. In so far as the period of absence is concerned, the management shall refer https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 the petitioner to the Medical Board, within two weeks and depending upon the outcome of the medical examination, steps for regularisation of the period of absence could be taken in accordance with the leave Rules applicable for the post. 9. In so far as the second writ petition, W.P.No.6549 of 2011 is concerned, the petitioner is entitled to as a matter of right, to have an enquiry conducted in tune with the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the decision rendered in Vishaka Vs. State of Rajasthan {AIR 1997 SC 3011}. Therefore, W.P.No.6549 of 2011 is disposed of, directing the respondents to constitute a Committee in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court, within two weeks and have an enquiry conducted and concluded, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. In the result, W.P.No.6534 of 2011 is dismissed and W.P.Nos.10903 and 6549 of 2011 are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Educational Officer, Madurai. 2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006. 3.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Madurai. 4.The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Madurai South, South Tower Street, Madurai. 5.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 43604 W.P.(MD).Nos.6534, 6549 and 10903 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 1 of 2011 13.12.2011 SVN SMA/03.01.2012/7C/4P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/