IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2010 / 15TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24809 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. DR.SELVARAJ C. HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT(HINDI), GOVT.VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,POOVAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SHYLA.S, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT(HINDI), GOVT.VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL FOR GIRLS, NEYYATTINKARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. GIRIJAKUMARI.V, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT(HINDI), GOVT.VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ANAVOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN SRI.R.SRINATH SRI.K.SURENDRAN (PARASSALA) SRI.NIKHIL GEORGE (PALAKKAPPILLIL) SRI.VIPIN VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHI,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 036. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 036. SRI. DILIP MOHAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jma C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) 24809 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners had earlier approached this court by filing WP(C)No. 9322/2010 challenging Ext.P1 order of transfer dated 8.6.2010. The said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P6 judgment dated 25.6.2010 after taking into account the fact that the order impugned therein was passed at the request of the petitioners but, at the same time they were continuing in their respective schools itself and no substitutes were transferred and posted in their place. After the submission of applications for transfer, petitioners 1 and 3 had submitted representations requested not to act upon their request for transfer. In the case of the second petitioner, he had submitted a similar representation immediately after the issuance of Ext.P1 order. Prior to Ext.P1 order of transfer no substitutes were transferred and posted in their place. Admittedly, even thereafter no substitutes were transferred and posted in their places and they were continuing in their respective schools. It was taking into account the aforesaid circumstances, this court passed a direction to the second respondent to consider their representations submitted by the WPC No.24809/2010 2 petitioners viz., Exts.P2 to P4 therein. Therefore, the second respondent was duty bound to consider the same. When this Court directed an authority to consider an issue, that authority bound to consider the same after applying its mind. There cannot be no doubt that application of mind can be reflected only through reasons. A perusal of the order impugned in this writ petition i.e., Ext.P8 order dated 29.7.2010 would reveal that it is an order passed with a closed mind. In this context it is relevant to refer to the following portion of the said order: “As the transfer is made based on the request of the petitioners, and there is no valid reason to cancel the transfer order the request of the petitioners are rejected.” What was the ground that compelled the second respondent to arrive at a decision that there was no authority to cancel the transfer order is not discernible from Ext.P8 order. In short, Ext.P8 order cannot be construed as an order passed in terms of the direction in Ext.P6 Judgment. As already noticed hereinbefore, this Court has issued direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Exts.P2 to P4 applications after taking note of the fact that the order of transfer impugned in W.P(C) No.19322 of 2010 was passed based on the request of the petitioners. For all these reasons I am of the view that Ext.P8 WPC No.24809/2010 3 order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, Ext.P8 order is set aside. Consequently, the second respondent is directed to consider Exts. P2 to P4 representations submitted respectively by the petitioners and to pass reasoned orders thereon. This shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Since the petitioners are continuing in their respective schools they shall be permitted to continue in their respective schools till an order is passed in terms of the direction in this judgment. Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE jma //true copy// P.A to Judge