IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2008 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 32044 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- TOJAN JOB, AGED 34 YEARS, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT, GOVT. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KUDAYATHOOR, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT JO BHAVAN, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOONAMUCHY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.DHANIL SRI.SOJAN JOB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, IDUKKI. 4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR. BY GOVT. PLREADER SRI. A.J. VARGEHSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.32044/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P10 is under challenge. 2. Petitioner, who belongs to Trissur District, is working as a HSA in Physical Science, in Idukki district since 6.6.2002. According to the petitioner he submitted Ext.P1 application seeking transfer to Trissur District. Along with the application it is stated that he had enclosed Ext.P2, a certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Udumbanchola to the effect that the place where the petitioner is working is a remote, Tribal and class I Hill tract area in terms of the provisions of Part II KSR. 3. It is submitted that in Ext.P4 judgment the application was directed to be considered and that the petitioner had also submitted Ext.P5 supplementary WP(c).No. 32044/08 2 representation. Ext.P3 is the guidelines governing inter- district transfer and clause 17(c) of Ext.P3 shows that the terms like hill station/remote station/work of an arduous nature may be each defined by departments and orders shall be made in this connection. Petitioner submits that in Ext.P8 reply, obtained by him under the Right to Information Act, the Public Information Officer attached to the office of the DPI has stated that there is no order issued by the Education Department in pursuance to clause 17(c) of Ext.P3 and that it is for the Tahsildar to issue a certificate in that behalf. 4. According to the petitioner, he having produced Ext.P2 certificate issued by the Tahsildar along with Ext.P1 application for his inter-district transfer, he is entitled to have his request allowed. Final order passed on Ext.P1 is Ext.P10 order of the Deputy Director. In that order it has been stated that no orders notifying Idukki District as remote/tribal area has been produced by the petitioner and WP(c).No. 32044/08 3 therefore his claim in that behalf cannot be accepted. On that basis the claim has been rejected. It is this order that is under challenge. 5. As already stated, though clause 17(c) of Ext.P3 requires that the terms hill station/remote station/work of an arduous nature will be defined by the Department concerned, in Ext.P8 it has been stated by the Department itself that the certificate is to be issued by the Tahsildar concerned. True, the petitioner has produced Ext.P2 certificate but that certificate does not certify that the area in question is one answering the descriptions in clause 17(c) of Ext.P3. If that be so, Ext.P10 cannot be faulted. 6. However, having regard to the fact that the view taken in Ext.P10 that the department itself has to define the area is contradictory to the view indicated by the Public Information Officer in Ext.P8, I am inclined to direct that if the petitioner produces a certificate from the Tahsildar concerned, answering the requirements of clause 17(c)pf WP(c).No. 32044/08 4 Ext.P3, the Deputy Director of Education, 4th respondent herein, should consider the request made by the petitioner. Therefore, directing that it will be open to the petitioner to produce a certificate as required under clause 17(c) of Ext.P3 and in which case the claim of the petitioner will be reconsidered by the 4th respondent, this Writ Petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No. 32044/08 5