IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 27TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1299 of 2011(J) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- D. ANITHA, H.S.A. (MALAYALAM) GOVT. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL KARUKONE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.M.R.ANISON SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KOLLAM-691 001. 3. THE MANAGER VAYANAKAM V.H.S.S, NJAKKANAL P.O., OACHIRA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, 690 526. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.1299/2011-J ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Exts.P1 and P2 orders whereby the petitioner, a protected teacher, has been deployed to an aided school of which the third respondent is the Manager. She was initially appointed as H.S.A (Malayalam) in an aided High School, namely, A.K.M. H.S.S, Thadicadu on 15/07/1988. During the academic year 1999-2000, she became a surplus hand therein, and she was initially deployed to Government H.S.Kulathoopuzha and in 2001 she was transferred to Government H.S.S. Karukone where she is now working. The petitioner challenges the order whereby the second respondent deployed her to another V.H.S.S Vayanakam managed by the third respondent-Manager. The Manager has also issued order appointing her in the school. 2. Mainly it is pointed out that the third respondent's school is situated more than 60 kilo metres away from the petitioner's residence and, W.P.(C). No.1299/2011 -:2:- therefore, she will have to travel by five buses and three hours journey is necessary also. The petitioner contends that because of certain family problems she will not be able to leave the station. Apart from that the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the deployment of the petitioner is overlooking the guidelines framed by the Government in the matter and the action taken by the Deputy Director is really faulty. 3. From the statement filed on behalf of the second respondent, it is evident that the third respondent's school is a newly upgraded school and in terms of Government Order No.(P)178/02/G.Edn., dated 28/06/2002 the Manager has set apart a vacancy of H.S.A (Malayalam) in the year 2010-2011 for the absorption of one protected teacher and a request in that regard was sent to the second respondent. Accordingly, the second respondent forwarded a list of protected teachers under H.S.A (Malayalam) and apart from the petitioner, name of one Smt.A.Sindhu, protected H.S.A (Malayalam) has W.P.(C). No.1299/2011 -:3:- also been forwarded. The petitioner further points out that the Deputy Director himself has permitted another protected hand to remain in the Government school, after considering compassionate grounds. 4. The learned Government Pleader, on the basis of the plea raised in the statement, submitted that the petitioner being a protected hand has no right to demand that she should be retained in the Government school. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner explained that the deployment can only be in terms of the guidelines and the petitioner has got certain grievances in the matter. 6. In paragraph (15) of the statement filed by the second respondent it is mentioned that three protected teachers are working on deputation in Sarva Siksha Abhiyan as Trainers in terms of G.O.(P). No.178/02/GE., dated 28/06/2002. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this is also not in terms of the guidelines. The statement further W.P.(C). No.1299/2011 -:4:- evidences the fact that the petitioner has filed a representation before the Government, a copy of which is produced along with the writ petition as per Ext.P7, and the Government has called for a report from the Deputy Director and the matter is still pending. Therefore, I am not going into the merits of matter. 7. There will be a direction to the Government to take a decision on Ext.P7 within two months after hearing the petitioner and other affected parties if any. The interim order passed by this Court will continue till orders are passed by the Government. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms \\TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE