1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.04.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE K. SUGUNA and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. ARUMUGHASWAMY W.A. (MD) No.177 of 2011 and M.P. (MD) Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 Jeeva Jayarani Appellant/III Party vs. 1 D. Suganthi Daisy Rani 2 The District Educational Officer Trichy District,Trichy 3 The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer West Range,Trichy 4 The Correspondent TELC Primary School Ponmalaipatty, Trichy 5 The Chairman TELC Education Board Post Box No.86 Tranquebar House Trichy District Respondents cause title amended vide order dated 24.3.2011 and made in MP.(MD)No.3/2011 in WA(MD)No.177/2011 Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated 13.08.2010 passed in W.P. (MD) No.10333 of 2010. Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent in Ref.CP.No.117/27.6.2010 dated 27.07.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the fourth respondent to retain the petitioner in the TELC Primary School, Ponmalaipatti, Trichy District. For appellant Mr. M. Siddharthan For R1 Mr. D. Muruganantham For RR 2 & 3 Mr. R. Janakiramulu, Spl. Govt. Pleader For R4 Mr. M.E. Elango https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. SUGUNA, J.) This writ appeal is filed challenging the order dated 13.08.2010 passed in W.P. (MD) No.10333 of 2010. 2. The above said writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein challenging the transfer order dated 27.07.2010 issued by the fifth respondent by which she was transferred from Ponmalaipatti to Pennakonam. The said writ petition was allowed by order dated 13.08.2010 on the ground that there was no vacancy at Pennakonam. However, liberty was given to the respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition who are respondents 4 and 5 herein, to issue an appropriate transfer order. 3. The grievance of the appellant is that while allowing the above said writ petition, the transfer order issued in her favour was also set aside. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant was not even a party to the said writ petition, consequently, challenging the same, this writ appeal is filed. 4. According to the learned counsel for the fourth respondent herein, based on the orders passed by this Court in the above said writ petition and the transfer order dated 20.10.2010 passed by the fifth respondent herein, the first respondent/writ petitioner has been transferred to Themmoor and that order also was not challenged by the first respondent/writ petitioner. 5. But, according to the learned counsel for the first respondent/writ petitioner, the first respondent/writ petitioner is still continuing at Ponmalaipatti and it is also not disputed that the first respondent/writ petitioner has been serving in the said station for a period of ten years. However, it is the stand of the learned counsel for the first respondent/writ petitioner that since the first respondent/writ petitioner is a widow with two children, she should be allowed to continue at Ponmalaipatti. 6. As far as the above stand of the learned counsel for the first respondent/writ petitioner is concerned, merely on the ground that the first respondent/writ petitioner is a widow, the Court cannot direct the authorities to retain her always in a particular station, especially when the post is a transferable post. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, now only, by the impugned order, the appellant is transferred to Ponmalaipatti and so far, she was separated from her family. 7. Taking into account the undisputed fact that the first respondent/writ petitioner had already worked in Ponmalaipatti for a period of ten years and now, transfer order has been issued transferring her to Themmoor which is at a distance of 150 kms., we https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 are of the considered opinion that the competent authority can examine the case of the first respondent/writ petitioner and if there is any possibility to accommodate her in and around Ponmalaipatti, the same can be considered and orders may be passed before 30.05.2011. If orders are not passed within the stipulated period, then, the first respondent/writ petitioner is directed to join at Themoor. In view of this, the transfer order issued in favour of the appellant is confirmed. With the above directions and observations, this writ appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/ Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1 The District Educational Officer Trichy District, Trichy 2 The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer West Range, Trichy 3 The Correspondent TELC Primary School Ponmalaipatty, Trichy 4 The Chairman TELC Education Board Post Box No.86, Tranquebar House Trichy District +1cc to Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Advocate, Sr.No.15490 +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 16258 +1cc to Mr.D.Muruganantham, Advocate, Sr.No.15809 W.A. (MD) No.177 of 2011 and MP(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 27.04.2011 cad SMA/13.05.2011/8C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/