IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2008 / 6TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18955 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: 1. AMRITHA SELVAM, W/O.SELVAM, AGED 26, RESIDING AT MANAKKATTU HOUSE, H.M.T.COLONY P.O. KALAMASSERY. 2. VENI ANBU, W/O.KANNAPPAN, AGED 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT PUNNAKKATTU, KOCHI UNIVERSITY P.O., THRIKKAKKARA. 3. MUJEEB RAHIMAN, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT PUTHUVAYI HOUSE, KOCHI UNIVERSITY P.O., KALAMASSERY. 4. RATHOOL BORAH, S/O.BORAH, AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT KALAPPURAKKAL HOUSE, KOCHI UNIVERSITY P.O., KALAMASSERY. 5. RASATHI, W/O.SELVARAJ, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT MANAKKATTU, H.M.T.COLONY P.O. KALAMASSERY. 6. PALAMMAL, W/O.GANESAN, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT THEENATTU HOUSE, H.M.T.COLONY P.O KALAMASSERY. 7. PALANI AMMA, W/O.SELVARAJAN, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT PUNNAKKATTU, KOCHI UNIVERSITY P.O., KALAMASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. WP(C).No. 18955/2008 RESPONDENTS: 1. THE HEADMASTER, GOVT.L.P.SCHOOL, PALLILAMKARA, H.M.T.COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERY. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ALUVA. BY SRI. T.T.MUHAMMED, GOVT. PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18955/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17/06/2008 SUBMITTED BY 1st PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2nd RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1(b) : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20/06/2008 SUBMITTED BY 2nd PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2nd RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1(C) : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19/05/2008 SUBMITTED BY 3rd PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2nd RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1(d) : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25/05/2008 SUBMITTED BY 4th PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2nd RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1(e) : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18/06/2008 SUBMITTED BY 5th PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2nd RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1(f) : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20/05/2008 SUBMITTED BY 6th PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2nd RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1(g) : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18/06/2008 SUBMITTED BY 7th PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2nd RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE scm K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 18955 OF 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The children of the petitioners are studying in Government L.P. School, Pallilamkara, H.M.T. Colony, Kalamassery. It is stated that the petitioners approached the Headmistress of the School and requested to issue Transfer Certificate to their children about two weeks before filing the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was filed on 23rd June, 2008. It is also stated in the Writ Petition that the Headmistress intimated the petitioners to come after two days so that Transfer Certificate could be prepared in the meanwhile. It is further stated that the petitioners again approached the Headmistress for getting Transfer Certificate. But the Headmistress refused to issue the Transfer Certificate for reasons not known. According to the petitioners they submitted Exts. P1(a) to P1(g) representations before the Assistant Educational Officer, Aluva, requesting to issue a direction to the 1st respondent, Headmistress, to issue the Transfer Certificate. The grievance of the petitioners is that the 2nd respondent, Assistant Educational Officer, has not W.P.(C) No. 18955/2008 2 considered the representations submitted by the petitioners. 2. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following: i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to issue Transfer Certificates to the petitioner's children as requested by them. ii) Issue such other writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on 24.6.2008 the Assistant Educational Officer issued a letter to the petitioners stating that they have to approach the Headmistress for getting Transfer Certificate of their wards. It is also stated in the letter that as per report submitted by the Headmistress, no request was made to her by the petitioners for the issue of Transfer Certificate. W.P.(C) No. 18955/2008 3 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents also submitted that no application was made by the petitioners to the Headmistress for granting Transfer Certificate to their wards. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that Exts. P1(a) to P1(g) are representations submitted by the petitioners to the Assistant Educational Officer wherein they made a request to issue Transfer Certificate. There is no mention in any of those representations that the petitioners approached the Headmistress and that she refused to issue the Transfer Certificate. The pre-requisite for filing an appeal to the Assistant Educational Officer is that the petitioners should have approached the Headmistress for the issue of Transfer Certificate and the Headmistress should have, without any reason, refused to issue Transfer Certificate. Such an ingredient is conspicuously absent in the present case. Rule 17 of Chapter VI of the Kerala Educational Rules provides that the Transfer Certificate in form 5 may be issued by the Headmistress on any day during the summer vacation and for sufficient reasons at other times. The Rule also provides that Transfer Certificate may be issued by the Headmistress at any time to pupils who have appeared for Public Examinations. Rule 20 W.P.(C) No. 18955/2008 4 provides that in the event of a Headmistress refusing or delaying to give a Transfer Certificate, the parent or guardian shall have the right of appeal to the Educational Officer. The decision of the Educational Officer shall be final unless he (the Educational Officer) thinks it necessary to refer to the higher authorities. Rule 21 provides for grouping of Schools for the purpose of issue of Transfer Certificates, which may not apply in the case on hand, on the pleadings available in the case. 5. In the case on hand, the applications submitted by the petitioners were rightly rejected by the Assistant Educational Officer as per the communication dated 24.6.2008. A writ of mandamus can be issued to an authority only when a demand was made and that demand was not accepted, provided there is a corresponding responsibility or liability on that authority. Here the Headmistress was not approached by the petitioner as is evident from the communication issued by the Assistant Educational Officer as well as the submission made by the learned Government Pleader. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief of a writ of mandamus as prayed for in the Writ Petition. W.P.(C) No. 18955/2008 5 The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and I do so. However, dismissal of the Writ Petition will not be a bar for making appropriate applications to the Headmistress in accordance with law. If such applications are made, the Headmistress shall dispose of the same in accordance with the relevant Rules in Chapter VI of KER. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE vkm