Jane Lrine Bennyson v. Education(SEPS.II) Department, Secretariat Hyderabad

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondent No : GP FOR EDUCAT ION T he Court made t he following : ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging Memo No.203/SE PS.II/A1/2008, dated 4.7.2008 issued by the first respondent. Under the impugned memo dated 4.7.2008, 8th respondent is sought to be transferred from 6th respondent School to 7th respondent school. It is the case of the petitioner is that she was appointed in the 7th respondent School in the year 1984 as Second Grade Teacher and she has been working continuously as such and in view of her meritorious service and seniority, she has been put as Full Additional Charge to the post of Principal of the 7th respondent School. It is her grievance that, if 8th respondent, who is senior to her, is transferred to 7th respondent school, she may be preferred to be appointed as Principal (Full Additional Charge) in her place.

In fact, earlier, when one post of Secondary Grade Teacher was sought to be upgraded as School Assistant in the 7th respondent-School, by proceedings dated 23.07.2003 of the Commissioner and Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the same was rejected on the ground that it involves financial implications. While that being so, now the 8th respondent is sought to be transferred to the 7th respondent school under the impugned proceedings. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this is a plan hatched by somebody else to deny the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Full Additional Charge Principal in her due turn. What could not be done during 2003 is sought to be done by way of transfer under the impugned proceedings. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondents strenuously contended that the petitioner has no right whatsoever, under law, to question the impugned proceedings.

The impugned proceedings are issued on administrative exigencies to accommodate the 8th respondent in the 7th respondent school. Such transfer, which does not affect service conditions of the petitioner, could not have been challenged by way of filing this writ petition. Apart from that, the school is not the unit for the purpose of transfer, seniority and promotion, therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. I am in full agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 8th respondent - Sri Rudra Prasad - that the petitioner has no right whatsoever to question the impugned proceedings transferring the 8th respondent to the 7th respondent school. It is only the apprehension of the petitioner that in view of transfer of 8th respondent to 7th respondent school, she would be reverted to the post of Second Grade Teacher.