IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 11TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 22470 of 2008(Y) PETITIONER: P.T.SHEEJA, 30 YEARS, L.P.SCHOOL ASSISTANT, G.L.P.SCHOOL, KANJIRAMUKKU, PONNAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.DIVAKARAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM 3. K.SHAREENA, L.P.SCHOOL ASSISTANT G.B.L.P.SCHOOL, MUDUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 22470 OF 2008 Y -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd September, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Lower Primary School Assistant in Government L.P.School, Kanjiramukku. She submitted an application for transfer to the Deputy Director of Education at the time of general transfer 2008-09, requesting for a transfer to Mudur. The third respondent, who was working at Mudur, submitted an application for transfer from Mudur to Purangu. One K.K.Ganga also applied for transfer from Mudur. The requests of the third respondent and K.K.Ganga were allowed. It is stated that Smt.Jisha V.Nair had applied for transfer to Mudur. It is also stated that there was no other applicant other than the petitioner and Jisha V.Nair, who applied for transfer to Mudur. Since there were two vacancies at Mudur, the petitioner as well as Jisha V.Nair could be accommodated. 2. However, when Ext.P1 general transfer order was issued on 30.5.2008, the name of the petitioner was not included therein. In Ext.P1, it is stated that application for cancellation of transfer will not be entertained at any cost. Since the petitioner was not included in Ext.P1, she did not get transfer to Mudur though one vacancy was kept unfilled. W.P.(C) NO.22470 OF 2008 :: 2 :: The petitioner states that bona fide thinking that because of an omission in Ext.P1 due to oversight that her name was not included in Ext.P1, she submitted Ext.P2 representation dated 3.6.2008 to the Deputy Director of Education requesting to transfer her to Mudur. 3. While so, the third respondent, who got relieved from Mudur and joined at Purangu, was re-transferred to Mudur as per Ext.P3 order. The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order in this Writ Petition in so far as it relates to the third respondent. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 11.7.2008, before the Deputy Director of Education pointing out these facts and seeking redressal of her grievance. A transfer to Mudur is prayed for in Ext.P4. Ext.P4 is not disposed of by the Deputy Director of Education. 4. Though notice was issued to the respondents, third respondent has not entered appearance. The third respondent wanted to be transferred out of Mudur and that request was granted. She joined in the School at Purangu. Later, as per Ext.P3 order, she is re-transferred to Mudur. What is stated in Ext.P3 is that the transfer order is issued for various reasons. Why the request of the petitioner to get a transfer to G.B.L.P.School, Mudur was not considered, is not disclosed by the Deputy Director. Ext.P4 representation is also not disposed of. W.P.(C) NO.22470 OF 2008 :: 3 :: 5. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following: “a) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, declaring that the petitioner is entitled to be transferred to GBLKS, Mudur; b) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Exhibits: P1 and P3 so far as they relate to the petitioner; c) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, commanding respondents 1 & 2 to transfer the petitioner to GBLPS, Mudur forthwith; d) grant such other relief as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case; AND e) award to the petitioner the cost of these proceedings.” 6. Since Ext.P4 representation is pending before the Deputy Director of Education, the grievance of the petitioner would be substantially redressed if the Deputy Director of Education is directed to consider and dispose of Ext.P4, after taking into account all the relevant facts and also the contentions put forward by the petitioner. From the uncontroverted facts, it is clear that the request made by the petitioner for transfer to GBLP School, Mudur should have been granted. No reasons are stated as to why the petitioner was not granted a transfer to GBLP School, Mudur. Since the third respondent has not contested the Writ Petition and since she wanted a transfer from Mudur to some other W.P.(C) NO.22470 OF 2008 :: 4 :: school, it can be assumed that she is not very much interested in working at GBLP School, Mudur. All these are matters to be considered by the Deputy Director of Education. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Deputy Director of Education (second respondent) to consider Ext.P4 representation in the light of the observations made above, as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the Deputy Director of Education. The existence of Ext.P3 shall not stand in the way of the Deputy Director of Education in passing appropriate orders on Ext.P4, if necessary, in variance with Ext.P3. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/