IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2010 / 8TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 15616 of 2010(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ LAKSHMI PBS, PRINCIPAL,COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCE, PEERMEDU, RESIDING AT PARAYATH, THATTAMALA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT (IHRD) REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR PRAJO'E TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. DIRECTOR INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PRAJO'E TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. CHAIRMAN INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PRAJO'E TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4. MURALI V.S, PRINCIPAL ,COLLEGE OF APPLLIED SCIENCE KUNDARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, IHRD, SRI.S. SUJIN, SC, IHRD. R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 15616/2010-B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EA2/6224/2009/HRD DATED 15/12/2009. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION (APPEAL) FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 23/12/2009. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C) NO. 2352/2010 DATED 25/01/2010. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GO(RT)NO.748/2010/H.EDN. DATED 12/04/2010. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.98/DSP/9 DATED 31/01/2002. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE APPLICATION NO.A1/316/2009/CASP DATED 26/04/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.EB3/5666/2010 HRD DATED 24/05/2010 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE APPLICATION NO.A1/316/2009 CAS-P DATED 27/05/2010. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.EA3/5666/2010 HRD DATED 29/06/2010 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE LETTER (APPLICATION) FROM NISHA A.R. DATED 27/05/2010. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.EB3/6946/2010/HRD DATED 29/06/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE GENERAL TRANSFER ORDER NO.E1/46/98/HRD DATED 28/04/1998. EXT.R1(b): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FROM THE STUDENT OF THE COLLEGE TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.R1(c): COPY OF THE REPORT NO.EA2/1557/2010/HRD DATED 26/03/2010. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.15616 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 30th July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is presently working as Principal, College of Applied Science, Peermedu filed this writ petition assailing Exts.P1 and P4. The further prayer is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to re-transfer and post her at College of Applied Science, Kundara. Ext.P1 is the order dated 15.12.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent transferring the petitioner from the College of Applied Science, Kundara to the College of Applied Science, Peermedu. Against Ext.P1 order the petitioner had preferred Ext.P2 appeal dated 23.12.2009. Aggrieved by the delay in the matter of disposal of Ext.P2 appeal she had filed W.P.(C)No.2352 of 2010 and the same was disposed of as per Ext.P3 judgment. Thereupon, Ext.P4 order was passed rejecting Ext.P2 appeal. 2. Exts.P1 and P4 are assailed on various grounds. Though an allegation has been raised that they are vitiated by malafides no specific averments are made to support the same. So also, no relevant materials are produced to sustain the said contention. A vague contention of malafides is not sufficient to sustain an attack against the said orders on that ground. Therefore, the ground of malafides raised WP(C).No.15616/2010 2 are bereft of any basis. 3. The petitioner has provided a comparative table of the service particulars of herself and that of the 4th respondent to contend that she had more outstation service than the 4th respondent and that she was allowed only a short stay of 15 months in her home station. That apart, it is contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioner regarding failure to take steps for the development of the College in spite of repeated instructions from the 2nd respondent, are absolutely baseless and unfounded. At any rate, according to the petitioner, since those reasons were not assigned in Ext.P1 order of transfer they could not have been attributed for the first time in Ext.P4 to sustain the transfer ordered as per Ext.P1. That apart, the petitioner has produced Exts.P6 to P8 to canvass the position that there was absolutely no reason or justification for transferring her on the ground of receipt of complaints relating inaction for the development of the College of Applied Science, Kundara. Ext.P11 would reveal that the 2nd respondent had received only anonymous complaints. It is also contended that Ext.P11 would also reveal that as against the request of the petitioner for furnishing the copies of the instructions given to her by the Director she was informed that copies could not be furnished as no written WP(C).No.15616/2010 3 instructions were given by the Director to the petitioner. In the above circumstances, the petitioner contends that she was transferred as per Ext.P1 only to favour the 4th respondent. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 wherein it has been stated that necessary instructions have been issued to the petitioner and such other head of the institutions under the first respondent as and when circumstances demand for the same. It has been stated thereunder that all the complaints against the petitioner were received only over telephone. It would further suggest that there was laxity on the part of the petitioner in taking appropriate action for acquisition of land and developmental activities as Principal of the College of Applied Science, Kundara. A scanning of the contentions raised in the counter affidavit and also in Ext.P4 would undoubtedly show that they would tag aspersion of inefficiency on the petitioner for the rest of her service career. That apart, a scrutiny of the allegations upon which the order of transfer is founded would show that they cannot be treated as non-stigmatic. Stigmatic observations cannot be made against a person without putting him on notice and without affording him an opportunity to offer explanation with respect to the allegations. The allegations would definitely hamper the prospects of the petitioner for WP(C).No.15616/2010 4 further promotions in her career. Effecting transfer in the interest of justice and effecting transfer based on the allegations referred to in Ext.P4 and in the counter affidavit cannot be treated as one and the same. 5. In this case, it is to be noted that along with the affidavit the petitioner has produced certain documents such as Exts.P6 to P8 and also Ext.P11 which would suggest absence of materials before the authorities for arriving at the conclusions in Ext.P4 order. In case the petitioner had done anything detrimental to the developmental activities or the interests of the College of Applied Science, Kundara wherein she was working, the respondents could have issued appropriate instructions to correct the petitioner or at the most, taken appropriate steps for the lapse, if any. The action in attributing laches and laxities while passing Ext.P4 would cast stigma on the petitioner and would ultimately hamper her promotional prospects. Therefore, the said action cannot be sustained. Though subsequent to the filing of the counter affidavit another affidavit was filed by the second respondent, it contained no material to sustain and support Ext.P4 order. It is stated thereunder that the request of the petitioner for transfer would be considered during the finalisation of general transfer for the year 2010-2011. WP(C).No.15616/2010 5 6. In Ext.P4, letter No.EA2/1557/2010/HRD dated 26.3.2010 from the second respondent, was referred to. As per Ext.P4, in the said letter the second respondent has attributed indifferent attitude on the petitioner. In fact, the said letter was relied on for passing Ext.P4. Taking note of the said circumstances, a direction was issued to produce the said letter referred to in Ext.P4 and in compliance with the same, along with the affidavit referred above, the said letter dated 26.3.2010 has been produced as Ext.R1(c). I have carefully gone through Ext.R1 (c). A perusal of the same would reveal absence of remarks adverse to the petitioner herein. In short, the reasons assigned in the counter affidavit to support Ext.P4 cannot be appreciated at all. Evidently, Ext.P4 was passed in compliance with the judgment in W.P.(C)No.2352 of 2010 filed by the petitioner against Ext.P1 order. When a matter is considered by an authority pursuant to a direction of this Court the said authority considering the issue is bound to apply its mind while passing the order. I am of the view that Ext.P4 cannot be construed as an order passed in terms of Ext.P3 judgment. It requires reconsideration. To enable the Government to reconsider the issue especially taking note of the observations made in this judgment Ext.P4 is set aside. Consequently, there will be a direction to the fifth respondent to consider the issue WP(C).No.15616/2010 6 afresh and pass fresh orders expeditiously, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS