IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2011 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 9625 of 2011(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ LILA V.K., INSTRUCTOR, GOVERNMENT COMMERCIAL INSTITUTE, POTHANICAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001 2. DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, PADMAVILASOM PALACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23. 3. SENIOR JOINT DIRECTOR (ECS), DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, PADMAVILASOM PALACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23. 4. P.S.PADMINI, INSTRUCTOR, GOVERNMENT COMMERCIAL INSTITUTE, PALAKKAD.PIN- 678 001 5. SYMANTHAKAMANI T.A., INSTRUCTOR, GOVERNMENT COMMERCIAL INSTITUTE, KANCHIAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT.PIN-685 511 R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RANI DIOTHIMA R5 BT SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.C.A.ANOOP SRI.MATHEWS RAJU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2011,ALONG WITH WPC NO. 9738 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts 2/- -2- WP(C)NO.9625/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 15/12/2010 P2 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 06/01/2011. P3 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 22/02/2011 P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 17/3/2011. P5 COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28/02/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R5(A) COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CIVIL SURGEON, DISTRICT HOSPITAL, PALAKKAD DATED 30/10/2010. R5(B) COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DR.N.M.ARUN,CONSULTANT PHYSICIAN DATED 17/1/2011. R5(C) COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT DATED 21/01/2011. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 9625/2011-C & 9738/2011-N - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of June, 2011. JUDGMENT In Writ Petition No.9625/2011, the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 order, by which the fifth respondent is transferred from Government Commercial Institute, Kanchiyar, Idukki to Government Commercial Institute, Palakkad in the vacancy which has arisen due to the transfer of one Smt. P.S. Padmini. 2. The fourth respondent in W.P.(C) No.9625/2011 is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9738/2011 and she is aggrieved by the order by which the fifth respondent in W.P.(C) No.9625/2011 is transferred and posted in her place, by Ext.P3 order. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5. 4. First I will consider the pleas raised in W.P.(C) No.9625/2011. The petitioner is presently working in Government Commercial Institute. Pothanikkad. It is stated that the petitioner is settled at Palakkad. Ext.P1 is the circular by which applications were invited for general transfer 2011 and Ext.P2 is the copy of the application submitted by the petitioner. wpc 9625 & 9738/2011 2 Therein, Government Commercial Institute, Palakkad is given as second choice. A provisional list of Instructors proposed to be transferred in the Department was published as per Ext.P3, against which the petitioner submitted a complaint Ext.P4. It is pointed out that while finalising the list, fifth respondent was given a transfer to Palakkad, the second choice of the petitioner. This is the grievance raised in the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the fifth respondent pointed out that in the application for transfer, the petitioner has clearly specified that her transfer application should be considered only if she will be transferred from her current institution/office (upon request of others). It is also pointed out that the first choice of the petitioner is Government Commercial Institute, Mala, Thrissur, the second choice is G.C.I., Noorani, Palakkad and the third choice is G.C.I., Kaloor, Ernakulam. It is pointed out that since the petitioner joined at Pothanikkad only in January 2010, there was no proposal to transfer her and in the light of the rider put by her in Ext.P2 application itself, the petitioner is retained in her present station. The said contention appears to be correct. Even though the petitioner submitted the transfer application, she has specifically stated therein that the application need be considered only if she will be transferred from her current institution. In the proposal Ext.P3, there is nothing to show that the wpc 9625 & 9738/2011 3 petitioner is proposed to be transferred. Actually, the petitioner has no grievance against the transfer order issued. 6. In W.P.(C) No.9738/2011 the challenge is against Ext.P3 order by which the petitioner is transferred from Government Commercial Institute, Palakkad to Government Commercial Institute, Kanchiyar in Idukki District. The statement of facts therein show that Ext.P2 is the circular whereby the proposal was circulated seeking objections. The petitioner was not proposed to be transferred and the names of only two applicants were shown therein. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that she submitted an application for transfer showing Government Commercial Institute, Palakkad as the only choice. But when the proposal was published, nothing was mentioned about her application. In these circumstances, she filed an appeal and pursuant to the order passed in appeal, Ext.P3 order has been passed. 8. Evidently, there is no proposal to transfer the petitioner and when the appeal filed by the fourth respondent was considered, the petitioner was also not given notice. Therefore, only against a proposal, the petitioner was expected to submit any objection. Herein, there is no proposal/provisional list indicating her name. wpc 9625 & 9738/2011 4 9. In that view of the matter, the entire proposal will be reconsidered. Therefore, Ext.P3 order in W.P.(C) No.9738/2011 as far as it relates to the parties therein, is quashed. The petitioner has given a choice station in Ext.P4, as Government Commercial Institute, Mala, Thrissur. Therefore, while considering the competent claims of the petitioner and the fourth respondent in W.P.(C) No.9738/2011 , all the relevant aspects will be considered and a fresh order will be passed after hearing the petitioner and the fourth respondent who is the fifth respondent in W.P.(C) No.9625/2011. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9625/2011 prayed that her application also may be considered. As already found, the foot note in her application binds her. W.P.(C) No.9738/2011 is allowed as above and W.P.(C) No.9625/2011 is dismissed. This will be without prejudice to the petitioner's right to seek a transfer at the appropriate time and if she is proposed to be transferred. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/