IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2010 / 28TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 3599 of 2010(Y) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- V.J. MANIKANTAKUMAR, PIRNCIPAL, MODEL POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, PAINAVU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, PRAJOE TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 2. EX-OFFICIO CHAIRMAN OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, (THE INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (PRL. SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM). 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DEEPA M. KURUVILA, HEAD OF SECTION, PRESENTLY WORKING AT COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCE, MALLAPPALLY ON WORKING ARRANGEMENT. R1 & R2 BY M.K. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, IHRD, R4 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.3599/2010-Y: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 25/07/2007. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 27/05/2008. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 24/09/2009. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 05/02/2009 POSTING SMT. DEEPTHI.S.(HEAD OF SECTION) WITH FULL ADDITIONAL CHARGE AT KARUNAGAPALLY. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 05/02/2009 POSTING SMT. LINCY SKARIA (HEAD OF SECTION) WITH FULL ADDITIONAL CHARGE AT MATTAKARA, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.34406/2009 DTD. 08/12/2009. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR DTD. 20/01/2010. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER DTD. 01/06/2009. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE IHRD TO THE R.5 DT. 14/05/2010. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 14/05/2010. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 13/07/2010 ISSUED BY THE IHRD. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.3599 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as Principal in Model Polytechnic College, Painav in Idukki District. This Writ petition has been filed mainly challenging Ext.P7 communication issued to him in response to his request for transfer. The petitioner was transferred and posted as Principal of Model Polytechnic College, Painav in Idukki District on 18.5.2008. In the matter of transfer, the first respondent-IHRD has framed certain norms. The transfer norms relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in this Writ Petition reads as follows:- (a) The length of continuous service in the station at the time of his/her applying for transfer under consideration will be a criterion of transfer. (b) Employees who have put in longest period of service outside the particular station will be given the first priority. But the employees who have had more than 1 ½ years of service in assignments in tribal and remote areas such as Peermade, Vattamkulam, Vazhakkad and Wayanad district will be given W.P.(C) NO.3599/2010 2 preference by deeming 1 ½ years of service as such equal to 2 years. If they have equal service thus arrived at the total service period will be taken into account. 2. It is thus evident from the above extracted transfer norms that in the matter of transfer, employees who have put in longest period of service outside a particular station will have to be given the first priority by deeming 1½ years of service rendered by such persons in tribal and remote areas as equal to two years. Admittedly, the petitioner has already completed more than 1½ years of service in Painav in Idukki. The specific contention of the petitioner is that service in Painav in Idukki district rendered by him puts him among the preferential category and therefore, he is entitled to get a transfer to the plain land. 3. A statement has been filed in this Writ Petition by the first respondent. The first respondent did not have a case that service rendered in Painav in Idukki would not fetch such a preference to the petitioner. In the absence of any such contention, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of the above extracted norms. In fact, a perusal of Ext.P7 communication and the statement would reveal that the respondents have virtually, recognized the eligibility and entitlement of the petitioner to get W.P.(C) NO.3599/2010 3 a transfer from Painav in Idukki. Further, evidently, they did not dispute the availability of vacancy in the post of Principal at Model Polytechnic Colleges in Karunagappally and Mattakkara. The only reason assigned for not acceding to the request of the petitioner is that no senior faculty member in the cadre of Head of Section is available in Painav in Idukki to hand over the charge of the Principal. At the same time, Ext.P8 would reveal that the fourth respondent, Head of Section, Model Polytechnic College, Painav was permitted to work at the College of Applied Science Mallappally on working arrangement and, in fact, even after the period stipulated in the order, she was permitted to continue in the said college. Thereafter, as per Ext.P9, on her request, she was given transfer from Model Polytechnic College, Painav in Idukki District to Model Polytechnic College Mattakkara. True that the fourth respondent is holding the post of Head of Section and not the post of Principal. In this context, it has to be noted that while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for transfer, the respondents have assigned non-availability of a senior faculty member at Model Polytechnic College, Painav in Idukki District. The respondents cannot contend that the Head of Section of Model Polytechnic College, Painav is not a senior faculty member. After virtually giving assurance to the petitioner to consider his claim in case of W.P.(C) NO.3599/2010 4 availability of senior faculty member in the cadre of Head of Section, now, as per Ext.P9, on request, the fourth respondent who was the Head of Section of Model Polytechnic College, Painav in Idukki District has been given a transfer. 4. A scanning of the contentions made in the statement filed by the first respondent would reveal that they did not have a case that in the plain land persons who have already completed the normal period of three years holding the post of Principal under the institutions belonging to the first respondent are not available. Admittedly, there is a tendency to keep aloof from such tribal and remote areas. Merely because the petitioner has volunteered to work in such an area obeying the orders of the competent authorities, respondents cannot compel that person to continue in the said place unless and until another person volunteeres to join there. In the case of the petitioner, he has already completed the normal tenure in the light of the above extracted transfer norms, and Ext.P9 would reveal that the person who was available there to assign charge of the Principal was also given a favourable treatment. I do not find any any reason to repel the prayer of the petitioner. For all these reasons and especially taking into account the availability of post of Principal in Model Polytechnic College Mattakkara and Model Polytechnic College, Karunagappally, I am of the W.P.(C) NO.3599/2010 5 view that the respondents are bound to consider the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, there will be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to consider the claim of the petitioner for a transfer either to Model Polytechnic College Mattakkara or to Model Polytechnic College, Karunagappaly as Principal. It will be open to the first respondent to fill up the vacancy in the post of Principal in Model Polytechnic College, Painav in Idukki District in case of transfer of the petitioner by effecting temporary promotions or by transferring persons who have already completed normal tenure in any of the institutions belonging to the first respondent, in plain land. An order in terms of the above directions shall be passed by the respondents 1 and 2 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.3599/2010 6 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NO. /2010 JUDGMENT June, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.3599/2010 7