IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17678 of 2010(H) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SHINO JAMES P., UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, ASSISTANT, B.E.M. HIGH SCHOOL, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, CSI SCHOOLS IN MALABAR & WYNAD, BANK ROAD, CALICUT. 2. THE HEADMISTRESS, B.E.M. HIGH SCHOOL, PALAKKAD. 3. SUSAMMA THOMAS, C/O. THE HEADMISTRESS, B.E.M. HIGH SCHOOL, PALAKKAD. 4. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MOHAMMED R3 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH, SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY. R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.17678/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 20.5.2010 OF THE IST RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 4.6.2010 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE DEO PALAKKAD. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.17678 of 2010-H = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010. Judgment 1.Adv.Sri.V.A.Mohammed appears for the first respondent. 2.The petitioner is a teacher in a corporate educational agency. The Corporate Manager transferred the petitioner from one school to another school. According to the petitioner, transfer from Palakkad to Kannur is against norms and visits the petitioner with adverse civil consequences. The Corporate Management is regulated by statutory provisions in the KER and the Kerala Education Act. The Corporate Manager is obliged to follow certain norms as applicable to transfers. If there is violation of any of those norms, the petitioner's remedy would be only under the statutory provisions and not at the first instance, by invoking Article 226 of WPC17678/10 -: 2 :- the Constitution. The petitioner, it is suggested by the learned Government Pleader, has a remedy before the DPI. 3.The petitioner has yet another case. This is that a new incumbent has been appointed against the vacancy that occurs on account of the petitioner's transfer. The approval of that appointment could be objected to, only before the approving authority which again is a statutory authority. For that also, a writ petition would not lie at the first instance. 4.Though the petitioner has made Ext.P2 representation to the DEO, it does not appear that the DEO has any say in the matter. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is ordered directing that if the petitioner makes appropriate appeal/revision before the competent statutory authority, the same will be taken up, considered and ordered in accordance with law WPC17678/10 -: 3 :- with notice to the Manager, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and her appeal/revision. Copy of this judgment will be produced along with the appeal/revision and copy of this writ petition. All issues on merits left open. The writ petition ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/1406