Skip to content


C. Alagirisamy Naidu Vs. the Collector of Madurai District and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1981)1MLJ372
AppellantC. Alagirisamy Naidu
RespondentThe Collector of Madurai District and anr.
Cases ReferredBaktavastalam v. Dist.
Excerpt:
- - thus the first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 60 clearly contemplates the two panchayat union councils being consulted before the transfer is effected......unions should have been consulted and that in this case there was no such consultation. the learned judge gave notice to the government pleader, who represented to the court that the power of the government under section 60(2) of the act had been delegated to the collector and that it was that delegated power that was exercised by the collector.2. as far as the requirement of consultation was concerned, reliance was placed on behalf of the appellant before us on the decision of palaniswami, j., in baktavastalam v. dist., collector, tiruchirapalli w.p. no. 4124 of 1970, dated 13th october, 1972. the learned judge in the present case did not follow that judgment, because be was of the opinion that a particular aspect was not placed before the learned judge. the particular aspect to.....
Judgment:

M.M. Ismail, C.J.

1. This is an appeal against the order of Mohan, J., dated 19th July, 1976, dismissing W. P. No. 2730 of 1976, filed by the appellant herein. The appellant was a Higher Grade teacher working in K. Vellakulam Panchayat Union, and by the order, dated 24th June, 1976, passed by the Collector of Madurai, the appellant was transferred to Aladipatti in Kodaikanal Panchayat Union. It was this order that was challenged in the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. The order was challenged on two grounds. One was that under Section 60(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958, it was the Government that had the power to transfer and that the Collector had no such power. The second was that, in any event, before the order of transfer was made, the concerned Panchayat Unions should have been consulted and that in this case there was no such consultation. The learned Judge gave notice to the Government Pleader, who represented to the Court that the power of the Government under Section 60(2) of the Act had been delegated to the Collector and that it was that delegated power that was exercised by the Collector.

2. As far as the requirement of consultation was concerned, reliance was placed on behalf of the appellant before us on the decision of Palaniswami, J., in Baktavastalam v. Dist., Collector, Tiruchirapalli W.P. No. 4124 of 1970, dated 13th October, 1972. The learned Judge in the present case did not follow that judgment, because be was of the opinion that a particular aspect was not placed before the learned Judge. The particular aspect to which the learned Judge made reference was Clause (16) of G. O. Ms. No. 2015, Rural Development and Local Administration Department, dated 23rd September, 1972, providing. 'The Collector may transfer teachers from one Panchayat Union to another suo motu within the district'. That Government Order merely laid down certain guidelines for the transfer of teachers, working in Panchayat Union schools. It is admitted before us that the Collector has no power independent of the delegation by the Government under Section 60(2) of the Act to transfer any officer or servant of a Panchayat Union Council from one Union to another. Section 60(2) of the Act which is the only statutory provision dealing with transfer, leads as follows:

60(2). Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, any officer or servant of a Panchayat Union Council (including the Commissioner), may be transferred by the Government to service of any other Panchayat Union Council or any municipality constituted under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920:

Provided that no officer or servant (other than the Commissioner) shall be so transferred except after consulting the Panchayat Union Councils or municipal Councils concerned.

Any authority making a transfer under this sub-section may issue such general or special directions as may in its opinion be necessary for the purpose of giving due effect to such transfer.

Thus the first proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 60 clearly contemplates the two Panchayat Union Councils being consulted before the transfer is effected. Simply because the power of the Government under Section 60(2) has been delegated to the Collector, the requirement of the first proviso cannot be dispensed with. There being no power other than toe one conferred by Section 60(2), the requirement of consultation must be complied with, whether the Government exercised the power themselves, or some other officer by virtue of the delegation (sic) by the Government of the exercise of the power.

3. Under these circumstances, it was the judgment of Palaniswami, J., which governed the situation. Consequently, we allow the writ appeal, set aside the order of the learned Judge and allow the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //