1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal(MD)No.763 of 2011 V.Ravichandran ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs. 1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Madurai) Ltd., Bye-pass Road, Madurai-625 010. 2.The General Manager,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Bye-Pass Road, Madurai-625 010. 3.B.Chandrasekaran 4.The Branch Manager,Usilampatti Branch, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Madurai) Ltd., Usilampatti, Madurai District. 5.K.Jeyakodi ... Respondents/Respondents Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 21.07.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.8074 of 2011. Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Parvai: Niruvagam/A1/113/2011 dated 15.6.2011 and consequential relieving order of the 4th respondent in Ref.USI/ESTT/240 dated 18.06.2011, quash the same. For Appellant : Mr.R.Subramanian For Respondents : Mr.K.Mahendran, 1, 2 & 4 Special Government Pleader JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by K.N.BASHA, J) This writ appeal is directed against the order of the writ Court, dated 21.07.2011, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, challenging the order of the transfer passed by the second respondent, dated 15.06.2011. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working as a last grade servant viz., Clerk, under TNSTC, Usilimapatti Branch and he has been transfered to Law Department, Madurai Branch. It is contended that the children of the appellant are studying in the school at Usilampatti and it would be very difficult for the appellant to shift the place during the middle https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 of the academic year. The learned counsel for the appellant would further contend that the petitioner already filed an affidavit of undertaking before this Court to the effect that after the completion of the academic year, he would join duty in the transfered post in the first week of May, 2012. The learned counsel would further submit that he has not joined duty in the transferred place, as he is on medical leave. 3.The learned counsel for the appellant would also place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Director of School Education, Madras and others Vs. O.Karuppa Thevan and another, reported in 1994 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 666, to substantiate his contention that the Government servant cannot be transferred during the middle of the academic year, as it would cause great hardship to the school going children of the Government servant. 4.Heard Mr.K.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader, on the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. It is contended by the learned Special Government Pleader that the transfer order was passed on administrative ground and the appellant has been transferred only from Usilampatti to Madurai, which is not a far of place and there is absolutely no reason for the appellant for not joining in the transfered post. It is contended that the appellant was already relieved from his post and as such, he cannot seek the relief of keeping the transfer order in abeyance. 5.We have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the materials available on record, including the order passed by the writ Court and the impugned order passed by the second respondent. 6.At the outset, it is to be stated that the appellant is only working as a last grade servant viz., Clerk in the second respondent/Corporation. It is pertinent to note that the perusal of the impugned order discloses that the petitioner has been transferred to the Law Department, Madurai Branch, as a Clerk on administrative grounds. It is needless to state that the petitioner has been transferred in the middle of the academic year. Though there is no statutory bar for such transfer, the Hon'ble Apex Court in various decisions held that it is better to avoid transfers during the middle of the academic year. 7.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision in Director of School Education, Madras and others Vs. O.Karuppa Thevan and another, reported in 1994 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 666, held as hereunder: "However, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that in view of the fact that respondent's children are studying in school, the transfer should not have been effected during mid-academic term. Although there is no such rule, we are of the view that in effecting https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 transfer, the fact that the children of an employee are studying should be given due weight, if the exigencies of the service are not urgent. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant was unable to point out that there was such urgency in the present case that the employee could not have been accommodated till the end of the current academic year. We, therefore, while setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal, direct that the appellant should not effect the transfer till the end of the current academic year." 8.The view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case, as in this also the appellant has been transferred during the middle of the academic year and no prejudice would be caused to the other side, in the event of the order of transfer kept in abeyance till the end of the academic year. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner also filed an affidavit of undertaking that he would join in the transfered post in the first week of may 2012. Therefore, we are constrained to set aside the order passed by the writ Court dated 21.07.2011. Consequently, the second respondent is hereby directed to keep the impugned transfer order, dated 15.06.2011, in abeyance till the first week of May, 2012. It is made clear that as per the undertaking given by the appellant before this Court, the appellant shall join duty to the transfered post in the first week of May, 2012. It is further made clear that the appellant shall also file similar affidavit of undertaking before the second respondent. 9.The writ appeal is ordered accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Madurai) Ltd., Bye-pass Road, Madurai-625 010. 2.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Bye-Pass Road, Madurai-625 010. Judgment In W.A.(MD)No.763 of 2011 Dated:16.12.2011 gcg SMA/02.01.2012/3C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/