IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2011 / 7TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16970 of 2011(U) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- DR.S. JAYALAKSHMI, D/O. SHANMUGHAM, FIRST DIVISION, SILENT VALLEY ESTATE, MUNNAR.P.O, 685 612, IDUKKI. (HSA (TAMIL), GHSS, DEVIKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, IDUKKI - 685 603. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, KATTAPPANA - 685 508. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 4. THE HEADMASTER/TEACHER IN CHARGE, GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, DEVIKULAM - 685 613. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V. VIJULAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2011 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 17070 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NKO.16970/2011 U APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A5/6459/2011 DTD. 8/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P1(A): COPY OF THE A LEGIBLE AND READABLE HANDWRITTEN COPY OF EXT.P1. P2: COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD. 20/06/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 20/06/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).Nos.16970/2011-U & 17070/2011-G ------------------------------------ DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2011 J U D G M E N T Both the Writ Petitions are filed challenging the order by which the petitioners were transferred out from the Government Higher Secondary School, Devikulam. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. 3. As directed by this Court, the learned Government Pleader made available the relevant files leading to the issuance of the transfer order. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.16970/11 that the order of transfer is based on certain unfounded allegations against the petitioner and before directing the transfer of the petitioner from the school, no opportunity was given to her to submit any explanation. It is pointed out that adverse comments have been made in the order without any justification and without hearing the petitioner and therefore the same amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. Reliance is placed on the judgment in Vijayan v. State of Kerala (2005(4) KLT 389). The said submission is supported by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.17070/11 also. W.P.(C).Nos.16970/ & 17070/2011 -2- 4. The relevant files show that the wife of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.17070/11 filed a complaint before the Deputy Director of Education and the District Educational Officer visited the school and conducted a prima facie enquiry and submitted a report. It is based on his report that the transfer order is issued. Since the main ground raised in the Writ Petition relates to the veracity of the complaint and whether any proper enquiry was conducted, it is only proper that the petitioners approach the Director of Public Instruction by filing appeals/representations. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.16970/11 submitted that the petitioner is transferred to a school at a distance of 70 Kms away from her native place and presently she is occupying quarters for teachers at Devikulam and as the distance is too much, she is unable to travel a long distance for attending the classes to the transferred station. No quarters are available there. She is having a minor child also. 5. The petitioner will be free to apprise the personal difficulties and can also point out vacancies if any in the nearby schools for her accommodation. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.16970/11 submitted that even the transfer of both the teachers was not at all necessary and leniency should have been shown to the W.P.(C).Nos.16970/ & 17070/2011 -3- petitioner, whose husband is working outside India. 7. The petitioners have already moved the Director of Public Instruction by filing Exhibit P3 produced in W.P.(C)No.16992/11 and Exhibit P2 in W.P.(C)No.17070/11. The petitioners will be free to seek appropriate interim orders by filing applications along with a copy of this judgment. If stay petitions are thus filed, the same will be considered and appropriate decision will be taken by the Director of Public Instruction within a period of 10 days from its receipt. The appeals Exhibits P2 and P3 produced in W.P.(C)No.16970/11 and W.P. (C)No.17070/11 respectively will be disposed of within a further period of six weeks. The petitioners will forward a copy of both the writ petitions and a copy of this judgment to the Director of Public Instruction for compliance. The Writ Petitions are disposed of as above. SD/-(T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn