IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 30TH AUGUST 2010 / 8TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9302 of 2010(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAJITH,S/O.YOUSEF, AGED 38, WORKING AS PRIMARY DEPARTMENT TEACHER, GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,VETTOOR PO, VARKALA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VANIYANTAZHIKOM, VETTOOR PO, VARKALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ATTINGAL. 3. THE HEADMISTRESS, G.H.S.S.,VETTOOR PO, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY G.P.SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ---------------------------- W.P(C).No.9302 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 order dated 20.2.2010 issued by the Deputy Director of Education, Thiruvananthapuram by which the petitioner was transferred from Government Higher Secondary School, Vettoor to Government L.P.School, Perumathura on administrative grounds. 2. Ext.P1 shows that the Headmistress of Government H.S.S.Vettoor had intimated the Deputy Director of Education that the petitioner, who was working as P.D.Teacher, was unauthorisedly absent in the school and that his absence had caused much inconvenience to the pupils. The Headmistress issued a memo to the petitioner. But it was returned on the ground that the petitioner refused to accept the memo. The Deputy Director of Education issued a direction to the petitioner to appear before him and to offer his explanation by issuing two letters. The petitioner did not W.P(C).No.9302 of 2010 2 appear before the Deputy Director of Education nor did he offer any explanation. Ext.P1 would also reveal that there was a complaint against the petitioner and the District Educational Officer, Attingal made an enquiry. The District Educational Officer, in his report submitted to the Deputy Director of Education, stated that the petitioner is a drunkard and he used to attend the school belatedly and that he was not very keen on discharging his duty as a teacher. The District Educational Officer recommended for transferring the petitioner to another school. In these circumstances, on administrative grounds, Ext.P1 order of transfer was issued. 3. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, no grounds are made out by the petitioner to interfere with the order of transfer. The transfer was made on administrative grounds. The interests of the students are of prime importance. The right of the teacher comes later. Facts and circumstances would disclose that the interests of the students W.P(C).No.9302 of 2010 3 were not being cared and protected by the petitioner in his capacity as a teacher. Therefore, I do not find any ground to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE cms