IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 24740 of 2008(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SINDHU A.P. JUNIOR INSTRUCTOR, I.T.I. (W) CHALAKUDY. BY ADV. SRI.V.AJITH NARAYANAN. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, INDUSTRIAL TRAINING DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE PRINCIPAL, I.T.I. MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, I.T.I.(W) CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. SMT. M.B.BABY, SENIOR INSTRUCTOR, I.T.I.MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 6. SMT. K.V.JALAJA KUMARI, SENIOR INSTRUCTOR, I.T.I.(W) CHALAKUDY. 7. SMT. SHANTY, JUNIOR INSTRUCTOR, I.T.I.(W) CHALAKUDY. R1 & R2 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NANDAKUMAR, R5 BY ADV. SRI.C.D.DILEEP, R6 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR, R7 BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN, ADV. SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR, ADV. SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD, ADV. SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM). THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.24740/2008-T: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO. A2/8760/96 DT. 28/04/01. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE GENERAL TRANSFER ORDER NO. A2/08/08 DT. 23/05/08. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER NO. A2/1018/2008 DT. 27/05/2008. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF R.1. NO. A2/14719/08 DT. 23/07/08. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE GENERAL TRANSFER NORMS GO(P).NO.12/04/P & ARD DT. TVM 10/09/2004. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R4.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C0.NO.17180/2007 DT. 12/07/2007 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.R5.A: COPY OF THE GENERAL TRANSFER GO(P)13/2000 OF THE PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (D) DEPARTMENT DTD. 27/04/2000. EXT.R5.B: COPY OF THE SERVICE DETAILS OF THE R.6 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL VANITHA I.T.I CHALAKUDY DTD. 16/06/2008. EXT.R5.C: COPY OF THE SERVICE DETAILS OF THE R.7 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL I.T.I CHALAKUDY DTD. 18/06/2008. EXT.R5.D: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE JOINT DIRECTOR DTD. 04/09/2007 CANCELLING THE 2007 GENERAL TRANSFER OF R.7. EXT.R5.E: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C). 19067/08 DTD. 25/06/08. EXT.R7.A: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THIS RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DIRECTOR (TRAINING), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD. 30/05/2007. EXT.R7.B: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 12/07/2007 IN W.P.(C).NO.17180/2007. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. prv. P.N.Ravindran, J. ===================== W.P(C).No.24740 of 2008 ===================== Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is presently working as Junior Instructor in the Industrial Training Department. She entered service as Junior Instructor on 27.4.1999. From the date of entry in service till 27.5.2008, she was stationed at the Industrial Training Institute at Malampuzha in Palakkad District. During the time of general transfer for the year 2008, the petitioner applied for a transfer to the I.T.I. (Women), Chalakudy. The petitioner belongs to Mambra, which is close to Chalakudy. Her request was considered by the Joint Director of Industrial Training and by Ext.P2 order passed on 23.5.2008, the Joint Director ordered transfer of the petitioner from the I.T.I., Malampuzha to I.T.I. (W), Chalakudy. Pursuant to the order transferring the petitioner to Chalakudy, the fifth respondent was transferred out to I.T.I., Malampuzha. The fifth respondent admittedly has completed five years of service at the I.T.I., Chalakudy. Pursuant to Ext.P2 order of transfer, the Principal, I.T.I., Malampuzha relieved the petitioner on 27.5.2008 and she joined duty at the I.T.I. (W), Chalakudy on 29.5.2008. WP(C) 24740/08 -: 2 :- 2. Aggrieved by her transfer to I.T.I., Malampuzha, the fifth respondent filed W.P.(C) No.19067 of 2008 in this Court with respondents 6 and 7 herein on the party array. The fifth respondent's grievance was that respondents 6 and 7 have completed a longer term at Chalakudy and they ought to have been transferred out instead of transferring her to Malampuzha. The petitioner herein was admittedly not a party to W.P.(C) No.19067 of 2008. The fifth respondent did not also challenge the petitioner's transfer from the I.T.I., Malampuzha to I.T.I. (W), Chalakudy. By Ext.R5(e) judgment delivered on 25.6.2008, this Court disposed of W.P.(C)No.19067 of 2008 with a direction to the Director of Industrial Training to consider the representation submitted by the fifth respondent against her transfer to Malampuzha and take a decision thereon after hearing respondents 6 and 7 as well. As directed by this Court in Ext.R5(e) judgment, the Director of Industrial Training heard respondents 5, 6 and 7 and passed Ext.P4 order cancelling the transfer of the petitioner and the fifth respondent ordered as per Ext.P2. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order to the extent it cancels her transfer from Malampuzha to Chalakudy ordered as per Ext.P2. 3. I have heard Sri.V.Ajith Narayanan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. P.Nandakumar, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, Sri.C.D.Dileep, the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent, Sri.M.K.Dileep Kumar, the WP(C) 24740/08 -: 3 :- learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent and Dr.K.P.Satheesan, the learned counsel appearing for the seventh respondent. It is evident from the pleadings in W.P.(C)No.19067 of 2008 and the directions issued by this Court in Ext.R5(e) judgment that the fifth respondent did not at any point of time have a grievance about the petitioner's transfer from I.T.I., Malampuzha to I.T.I.(W), Chalakudy. As noticed above, right from the date of entry in service in the year 1999 till she was transferred to Chalakudy, the petitioner was working at Malampuzha. The petitioner's entitlement for transfer from Malampuzha was never questioned by the fifth respondent in W.P.(C) No.19067 of 2008. The only dispute raised by the fifth respondent was that respondents 6 and 7 herein, who were joined as respondents 3 and 4 respectively in W.P.(C)No.19067 of 2008 had served for a longer term at Chalakudy and therefore, one among them ought to have been transferred out instead of transferring out her from Chalakudy. In short, the directions issued by this Court in Ext.R5(e) judgment will have to be understood as one directing the Director of Industrial Training to adjudicate upon the said claim of the fifth respondent. Evidently on the wrong understanding of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.R5(e) judgment and without hearing the petitioner, the Director of Industrial Training passed Ext.P4 order annulling the petitioner's transfer. 4. In my considered opinion, the decision taken by the Director in Ext.P4 to the extent it cancels the petitioner's transfer to Chalakkudy is WP(C) 24740/08 -: 4 :- not sustainable in law and was not called for the. The Director has in Ext.P4 held that transfers on administrative grounds can be ordered only by the State Government. Reference is made in Ext.P4 to paragraph 29 of Ext.P5 Government order. I am of the view that the said reasoning also is faulty and not sustainable in law. Ext.P5 only lays down the norms to be followed by the transferring authorities including the Joint Director of Industrial Training when transfers are effected by him. Paragraph 29 of Ext.P5 Government order only reserves power with the Government to deviate from the norms prescribed therein and to order transfer in relaxation of the norms. The only restriction is that such power can be exercised by the Government only on administrative grounds. I therefore hold that Ext.P4 to the extent it interferes with the petitioner's transfer from I.T.I., Malampuzha to I.T.I.(W), Chalakudy is set aside. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue at I.T.I.(W), Chalakkudy pursuant to the order of transfer effected as per Ext.P2. 5. A reading of Ext.P4 indicates that the dispute raised by the fifth respondent has not been considered by the Director when he passed Ext.P5. Therefore, there will be a further direction to the Director of Industrial Training to consider the representation submitted by the fifth respondent afresh after hearing respondents 5, 6 and 7. I further clarify that the Director shall not while passing fresh orders, interfere with the petitioner's transfer and posting at the I.T.I., Chalakudy under Ext.P2. WP(C) 24740/08 -: 5 :- The Director shall pass revised orders in the matter within two months from today. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 18/10