IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2010 / 29TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 26110 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BEENA.G.K., HSST (PHYSICS), GOVT. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, CHERKKALA, KASARGOD-671 121. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.T.PRAVEEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SHANTI NAGAR, TRIVANDRUM-1. 2. SIJI GEORGE, GOVT.VHSS, ERIYANNI, KASARGOD-671 121. BY G.P.SRI.DILIP MOHAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.26110 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 20th August, 2010 JUDGMENT The grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition pertains to Ext.P5 order of transfer whereby ignoring the preferential claim available to the petitioner the second respondent has been given a favourable transfer and posting. The petitioner has submitted his objections to the provisional transfer list. She has raised all her contentions in Ext.P4. It was without looking into and averting to all the said objections that the said provisional transfer list was finalised as per Ext.P5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent has been given preference in the matter of transfer solely because the Principal of Government Higher Secondary School, Chemmanadu, Paravanadukkam in Kasaragod District who was a teacher in Economics has been transferred from the said school. Admittedly, the petitioner and the second respondent are Higher Secondary School Teachers (Physics). If, against the said vacancy, the second respondent who is a Higher Secondary School Teacher (Physics) can be given a transfer, I am of the view that there was no reason to decline consideration of the claim of the petitioner against the said vacancy as she is also a Higher Secondary School Teacher (Physics). WP(C).No.26110/2010 2 That apart, according to the petitioner, she is senior to the second respondent. She has also submitted that her younger child is still a suckling and further that as she belongs to scheduled caste, she is entitled to get a preference in the matter of transfer. As already mentioned, the said aspects have been specifically stated in Ext.P7 besides claiming seniority over the second respondent. In view of the position thus obtained in this case, I am of the view that the first respondent is bound to consider Ext.P7 representation submitted by the petitioner raising her grievances against Ext.P5. Considering the fact that the Director of Higher Secondary Education has already finalised the transfer list, I think it will be only appropriate for the petitioner to approach the Government raising all the aforesaid contentions against Ext.P5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the Government by filing appropriate representation raising grievances incorporating all the aforesaid aspects, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case the petitioner files such a representation within the stipulated time, the Secretary to Higher Education Department shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month thereafter after affording the second respondent an opportunity to make her representation in the matter. To enable the WP(C).No.26110/2010 3 Secretary to Higher Education Department to comply with the directions, the petitioner shall forward a copy of this judgment to the Secretary to Higher Education Department. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS