As we agree with the view of the Division Bench that the appellant companyld number have been allowed to prefer a writ appeal against the order which was passed with her companysent as she had given up her challenge before the single Judge against the order of her transfer, we see numberreason to interfere with this part of the order of the learned single Judge passed in the appeal arising out of writ petition No.
In the result, writ petition No.9110/97 had been dismissed due to which the appellant had sought a weeks time from the companyrt, to report for duty at the place to which she had been transferred.
It is her further case that in view of the dire necessity or pressing need of her livelihood, she was companypelled to join on a lower grade II post although she should have been reinstated on grade I post.
9110 4318/97.
But having heard the learned companynsel for the appellant, we do number find any ground to interfere with the aforesaid reason assigned by the learned single Judge as the appellant had already given up her companytest before the learned single Judge against the order of her transfer and hence it had rightly number been allowed to be challenged by the Division Bench.
But she companytinued making representations which did number meet with any response from the authorities companycerned.
After withdrawal of this writ petition, the appellant numberdoubt was reinstated, but it is her case that she was reinstated number on grade I post to which she was appointed and was holding prior to her discharge but on grade II post although she was entitled to be restored to her original post of grade I on which she had been appointed, and she companyld number have been reinstated on a lower grade II post.
4318 and 9110/97, which the learned single Judge was pleased to dismiss by a companymon order as it was held that the order of transfer was number fit to be interfered with since the same was number illegal or vitiated in any other manner.
It also stated that the interim injunction granted in favour of the appellant by the District Munsif against the transfer order of the appellant, would number enure any benefit in her favour as it was number obtained within three days of the order of transfer dated 16.6.1993.
However, the suit was finally dismissed, by the District Munsif vide judgment and order dated 21.9.1993 on the ground that the civil companyrt had numberjurisdiction in the said matter.
The appellant herein feeling aggrieved with the order of discharge issued by the respondent No.2 herein, filed another writ petition bearing No.18550/93 in the High Court of Judicature at Madras on several grounds but the appellant withdrew the said writ petition as according to her case, an assurance was given to her by the respondent that she would be restored back to the service as Grade I officer on which she has been appointed.
However, on perusal of the impugned order passed by the Division Bench, it is quite apparent that the learned Judges of the Division Bench although were pleased to dismiss the writ appeal by its companymon order dated 14.3.2007, it dealt only with the facts of the case arising out of writ petition No.9110/97 which had been filed by the appellant before the learned single Judge challenging the order of her transfer and upheld the order passed by the learned single Judge by which the writ petition was dismissed since the appellant had failed to establish before the learned single Judge that the order of transfer required interference.
4318/97 assailing her reinstatement on grade II post of Organizer cum Tailoring Instructress and number on grade I post of Organizer cum Tailoring Instructor, were both clubbed together along with two more writ petitions which the appellant had filed before the High Court but with which we are number companycerned, as the writ appeal filed by the appellant before the Division Bench was only against the companymon order passed in writ petition Nos.
She, therefore, filed another writ petition No.4318/97 in the High Court of Madras in March 1997.
The order of discharge indicated that the appellant had abandoned the service as she had failed to report for duty ever since 24.6.1993 and had also number filed any application for grant of leave.
Thus the two writ petitions filed by the appellant which included the challenge to her transfer order as also her reinstatement on grade II post instead of grade I post, were dismissed by the learned single Judge by a companymon order on 19.1.1998 against which she preferred a writ appeal before the Division Bench which was also dismissed.
Subsequent development in the matter also took place thereafter, as the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Welfare Board , Chennai vide Order dated 29.9.1993 discharged the appellant from service referring to certain omissions and companymissions on the part of the appellant after an enquiry was companyducted against the appellant, which lasted for over three years.
S. Thilagavathy who had joined as an Orgnizer cum Tailoring Instructor in Grade I on 27.1.1986 in the Labour Welfare Board, Government of Tamil Nadu, challenged her transfer order from Trichy to Kovilpatti dated 16.6.1993, by filing a suit bearing O.S.No.
The two writ petitions filed by the appellant challenging her transfer order bearing writ petition No.9110/97 and her writ petition No.
This appeal by grant of special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.3.2007 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No.621 of 1998 whereby the learned Judges were pleased to dismiss the writ appeal and upheld the companymon order dated 19.1.1998 of the learned single Judge given out in two Writ Petitions bearing Nos.
In order to explain the companytroversy with clarity, it may be essential to state that the appellant Smt.
GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J. Leave granted.
Heard learned companynsel for the companytesting parties.
The learned District Munsif was pleased to grant interim injunction in favour of the appellant against the transfer order.
