S. THILAGAVATHY versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

Citation: [2011] 6 S.C.R. 225 · Decided: 06-05-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. PANCHAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011) 6 S.C.R. 225 
S. THILAGAVATHY 
V. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3991 of 2011} 
MAY 6, 2011 
[J.M. PANCHAL AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Appeal: Appeal against consent order/non-speaking 
order - Maintainability of - Appellant working as Instructor in 
grade I in respondent-Board - The Board passed order C 
transferring the appellant -
Writ petition by appellant 
challenging her transfer order - Appellant thereafter not 
reporting for duty -- Order of discharge - Appellant filing writ 
petition, but withdrawing the same on assurance of 
reinstatement - Restored back on grade II instead of grade I D 
- Appellant filing writ petition after three years seeking 
reinstatement on grade I - Single judge of High Court 
dismissing writ petitions by combined order - Writ appeal 
· dismissed by Division Bench on the ground that since the 
appellant had agreed to join at the transferred place and given 
E 
an assurance to that effect to the Single Judge, the appeal 
was not maintainable - On appeal, held: Division Bench was 
right in holding that the appellant could not prefer a writ appeal 
against the order which was passed with her consent as she 
had given up her challenge before the Single Judge against 
F 
the order of her transfer- No reason to interfere with that part 
of the order of the Single Judge - However, Division Bench 
did not deal with the issue concerning reinstatement on grade 
II post - In the said circumstance, the appellant ought to have 
taken steps by way of reviewpetition before the Division Bench 
G 
and pointed out the error that 'her appeal arising out of writ 
petition seeking reinstatement on grade I was not dealt with 
at all by the Division Bench - It is left open to the appellant 
to approach Division Bench by way of review. 
225 
H 
226 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2011] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellant was an Organiser-cum-Tailoring 
Instructor in Grade-I in the Labour Welfare Board. The 
Board passed the order transferring the appeHant. The 
appellant filed a suit challenging the transfer order. The 
District Munsif granted interim injunction in favour of the 
B appellant. The suit was finally dismissed by the District 
Munsif on the ground that the civil court had no 
jurisdiction in the said matter. The appellant filed another 
\ 
writ petition no.9110/1997 challenging the transfer order. 
Meanwhile, in an enquiry against the appellant, the Board 
c found that the appellant had abandoned the service as 
she had failed to report for duty and had also not filed 
any application for grant of leave. The Board passed the 
order of discharge. The appellant filed another writ 
petition but subsequently withdrew the same as 
0 accordingly to her, 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 was appointed. 
After withdrawal of the said writ petition, the appellant was 
reinstated but on Grade II post. After about 3 years, she 
E filed another writ petition no.4318/1997 before the High 
Court. 
The two writ petitions no.9110/97 and 4318/97 were 
clubbed together. By a common order, the Single judge 
of the High Court dismissed writ petition no.9110/97 
F holding that the transfer order was not illegal or vitiated 
In any manner. Writ petition no.4318/97 was also 
dismissed by the Single Judge on the ground that there 
was no evidence to show that there was any assurance 
by the respondent-Board. The Single Judge also took 
G notice of the fact that after her reinstatement on Grade II 
post, the appellant had remained silent for well over a 
period of three years and only after a lapse of three years 
H 
in the year 1997, she filed a writ petition alleging that , 
there was an assurance from the respondent-Board to \ 
S. THILAGAVATHY v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND 227 
ORS. 
reinstate her on Grade I post. The Single Judge inferred 
A 
that this· plea of the appellant was purely an afterthought 
with no factual basis. She preferred a writ appeal before 
the Division Bench which was also dismissed. The instant 
appeal was filed challenging the order of the Division 
Bench of the High Court. 
B 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. A perusal of the Impugned order passed 
by the Division Bench showed that the Division Bench 
although dismissed the writ appeal by common order, C 
however, it dealt only with the facts of the case arising 
out of writ petition No.9110/97 which was filed by the 
appel

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.