IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2011 / 3RD ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18142 of 2007(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- N. GEETHA, JUNIOR HINDI TEACHER (FULL TIME), GOVERNMENT U.P.SCHOOL, PARAYAKAD, ALAPPUZHA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KASARAGOD. SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER, LAKSHMI NARAYANAN FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.9C) NO.18142/2007 I.A.NO.10139/2008 DISMISSED. SD/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE 24.6.2011 SD/- P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE APPENDIX EXT.P1: COPY OF ORDER NO.A3-4842/2003 DT. 29.9.2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF DECLARATION OF THE PETITIONER DT.21.10.2003. EXT.P3: COPY OF NOTICE NO.A3/221/53/2006 DT.19.3.2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF G.O.(MS) 301/68 DT.29.6.1968 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. OF KERALA. EXT.P5: COPY OF REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT.2.4.2007. EXT.P6: COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.A3/22153/06 DT.24.5.2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.18142 OF 2007 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. The petitioner challenges Exts.P3 and P6. To sustain that challenge, she also challenges Ext.P4 a Government Order of 1968. 2. Going by the facts, the petitioner was appointed as a Part-time Junior Language Teacher in Kasaragod District on 22.11.2000. She became a Full-time teacher in that District on 13.8.2002. On 29.9.2003, she obtained a transfer by request to Alappuzha district. The question is whether she was eligible to be treated as a Full-time Junior Language Teacher in Alappuzha District or had to be reckoned as the juniormost Part-time Junior Language Teacher in that District. 3. When one proceeds from one District to another District, in establishments where District is the unit of establishment, is the employee to go to be treated as the W.P.(C) No.18142/2007 2 juniormost in the entry cadre in the District to which the transfer is made? This is one of the questions that arises for decision. Even if it were so, would the employee be entitled to protection of emoluments and other incidentals including for the purpose of gratuity and continuity of service for such purpose without in any manner disturbing the seniority of the personnel in the District to which that teacher is transferred? This is another issue. Going by the clear terms of Ext.P4 Government Order we do not find any way to say that the teacher who gets transferred from one District to another can be permitted lateral entry into that District in the slot which would be identified equivalent to the post held by her/him in the District from which he/she has been transferred. But at the same time, the learned Single Judge, before whom this matter was initially pending, notices that it has been held by a learned Single Judge in Narayanan Nambodiri's case [1987(2)KLT 418] that on the face of Rule 27 (a) of the General Rules including the proviso thereto, there is no room to deny relief to such persons as there will not be any reduction in rank or emoluments consequent on any inter-district transfer. The learned Single Judge, who has made the reference W.P.(C) No.18142/2007 3 order doubts the correctness of the decision in Narayanan Namboodiri's case and also makes reference to an earlier judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.297/1975 (judgment dated 21.10.1975). 4. Inter-district transfers could occur in administrative exigencies and on administrative interest, not referable to any personal request of any particular member of service. When such inter-district transfers are made on the basis of the request of the individual, the same yardsticks cannot apply as would apply in instances of transfers made in administrative interest. Similarly, we find that in Narayanan Namboodiri's case, this Court took the view that Rule 27(a) does not provide for any deprivation or reduction of the emoluments, which the Officer had earned by reason of the long periods of service. Yet while concluding the judgment, it also proceeds to say that there cannot be any reduction in rank or emoluments on account of inter-district transfers. In Narayanan Namboodiri's case, an order dated 23.4.1987 is referred. we are not shown any such order by either the petitioner or the Government . We, however, W.P.(C) No.18142/2007 4 find that the impugned Ext.P6 order is issued with reference to GO.(P) No.128/88/G.Edn. Though we do not, therefore, propose to finally say anything on the claim of the petitioner for the relief which stands refused as per Exts.P3 and P6, we are clear in our mind that the interpretation of Rule 27(a) in the General Rules as made in Narayanan Namboodiri's case cannot be treated as containing any principle of law to the effect that there can be no reduction in rank. May be, the question of protecting the emoluments would stand governed by different Government Orders including G.O.(P) 4/1961. 5. Under the aforesaid circumstances, we direct the petitioner to make a representation to the Government of Kerala against Ext.P6 decision of the Deputy Director of Education. Having regard to the fact that the Government has now to address specifically on the issue relating to the Part-time Junior Language Teachers and the Full-time Junior Language Teachers for the purpose of inter-district transfers on individual request, the Government will treat that representation as a revision against the decision of the Deputy Director of Education and W.P.(C) No.18142/2007 5 decide on all relevant issues, provided such representation is made within a period of one month from today with a copy of this judgment. We clarify that we leave open all issues for consideration of the Government. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that all through out, the impugned orders stood stayed. Such status will continue for a period of 45 days to enable the Government to consider continuing the status quo. (THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps/25/6