IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 36074 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- B.MONIAMMA, H.S.A, (MALAYALAM), DEVASWOM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KANGAZHA. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.SATHISH NINAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, (MANAGER), TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD SCHOOLS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SMT.PUSHPALATHA,(MALAYALAM), DEVASWOM BOARD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THIRUVALLA. 3. B.SREEKALA, HIGH SCHOOL ASST(MALAYALAM), DEVASWOM BOARD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THIRUVALLA. ADV. SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, SC, TDB FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C) No.36074 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an HSA (Malayalam) working under the 1st respondent. By Ext.P3, she was transferred from Thiruvalla to Kangazha. Against Ext.P3, she had submitted Ext.P4 and that was ordered to be considered by Ext.P5 judgment of this Court. Accordingly, the matter was considered and by Ext.P7 the representation has been rejected. 2. In Ext.P7 the reasoning of the 1st respondent is that in order to avoid further complications, it is desirable to maintain the statusquo for the time being. Apart from the contention that there is yet another person in the school, who ought have been transferred, the petitioner has not made out any other ground for objecting to her transfer. It is also contended that in the middle of the academic year, the transfer ought not have been effected. 3. Originally, the transfer was effected by Ext.P3 on 29/07/2008 and that order was reiterated by Ext.P7. In my W.P.(C) No.36074/2008 -2- view, in the absence of any proved malafides or extreme case of arbitrariness, this Court should not interfere with an order of transfer. The 1st respondent should be given discretion to effect transfer, in the manner it suits its requirement. I am not persuaded to interfere with Ext.P3 particularly for the reason that in Ext.P7 itself, it is stated that the grievance of the petitioner will be redressed subsequently at an appropriate time by shifting to a convenient place. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg