Chennai: “The job of a teacher is equivalent to that of a sculptor, who with his profuse efficiency shapes a material like stone or wood by whittling away at it. Likewise, a teacher brings out the dreams of students into reality so as to shine in the society like stars and because of involvement of reckless and unprincipled reprobate, like the Headmistress, the teachers lose their reputations in the society", observed the Madras high court.
Framing 11 guidelines/ suggestions in the matter of surplus teachers, Justice S.Vaidyanathan expressed his expectation that the state government would issue a government order in respect of surplus teachers, by incorporating the guidelines.
Disposing of a petition from T. Paulraj, a PG Teacher (Botany), which sought to transfer him to any one of the higher secondary schools in Kanyakumari district, the judge directed the Chief Educational Officer to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders.
The judge said the petitioner before this court was a PG teacher (Botany) and his grievance was that though he was the most senior, both in service seniority and in station seniority, his request for transfer to Kanyakumari district, being his native place, was not entertained, whereas, his juniors were transferred to Kanyakumari district. Therefore, he has made a representation to the CEO, but, the same was yet to be considered. Hence, the present petition came to be filed, the judge added.
The judge said special government pleader submitted that the petitioner was, at first, posted at Pazhavoor, Tirunelveli district and as there was a surplus, he was transferred to Thirukkurungudi, Tirunelveli district.
SGP also submitted that at present, there were no vacancies in Kanyakumari district and therefore, the request of the petitioner as such could not be conceded.
At this juncture, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the transfer orders have been passed in violation of the petitioner's seniority and therefore, he prayed for directing the CEO to consider the pending representation of the petitioner in the light of the G.O dated May 29, 2018.
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court directs the CEO to consider the representation of the petitioner on its own merit and in
the light of the G.O, if applicable, and pass appropriate orders, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing,” the judge added.
