http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

PETITIONER: DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION MADRAS AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: O. KARUPPA  THEVAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT31/01/1994

BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. SINGH N.P. (J)

CITATION:  1994 SCC  Supl.  (2) 666

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:           ORDER 1.   Leave granted.  Heard both counsel. 2.   The  tribunal  has  erred in law in  holding  that  the respondent   employee  ought  to  have  been  heard   before transfer.   No law requires an employee to be  heard  before his transfer when the authorities make the transfer for  the exigencies of administration.  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  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.  The appeal is  allowed  accordingly with no order as to costs. 668