IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 27114 of 2009(H) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.JAYASREE, HEADMISTRESS, GOVT.L.P.SCHOOL POOVAMPOIL KURICHIYA COLONY, PO.VELLARVALLY, KANNUR DIST. BY ADVS.MR.V.C.JAMES MR.GEORGE MECHERIL MR.K.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR. 3. V.K.NALINI, H.M, PAZHASSI GOVT.L.P.S (PO), URUVACHAL, KANNUR DIST. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 27114 of 2009-H - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of November, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Headmistress of Govt. L.P. School Poovampoil in Kannur District. The grievance raised by the petitioner relates to Ext.P6 order of transfer issued by the Deputy Director of Education. 2. The petitioner has been working in the present station for more than four years. The third respondent herein is also working as a Primary School Headmistress at Pazhassi L.P. School. It is stated in para 1 of the writ petition that she joined there as Headmistress pursuant to th order dated 24.6.2009. By Ext.P1 circular, applications were called for, for general transfer during the year 2009-2010. The petitioner and third respondent submitted applications in time. Th first option of the petitioner is Kodalipram L.P.S. and Pazhassi is her second option. The third respondent had opted Poovampoil L.P.S. as her first option and Pazhassi as her second option. Ext.P4 is the copy of the priority status report of the third respondent. Against the draft transfer order, the petitioner had filed Ext.P5 objection. It is the case of the petitioner that ignoring the same, the third respondent was transferred to Pazhassi as per Ext.P6 order and the request wpc 27114/2009 2 of the petitioner was declined. 3. Even though notice was ordered in the writ petition and was served on the third respondent, there is no appearance on her side. The petitioner seeks for a review of Ext.P6 by considering her second option. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that even in Ext.P6, it is stated that the transfers are subject to review the claim of any senior hand is found overlooked. 4. Therefore, there will be a direction to the Deputy Director of Education to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of her option, after hearing the petitioner and third respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. A decision will be taken in terms of the guidelines in the matter. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the claim of the parties. The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/