IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2009 / 31ST BHADRA 1931 OP.No. 13715 of 1999(G) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- C.V.SAVITHRI, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT, GOVERNMENT GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHADEVI FOR R1 SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R3 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 13715 of 1999(G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE PROVISIONAL SENIORITY LIST DATED 25.4.1995. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. D5-40350/97/DPI DT. 27.5.1997. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6.6.1997. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9.6.1997. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.6.1997. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. 44501/97(2)/DPI DATED 3.7.1997. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.7.1997. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SYI044501/97/K.DIS/DPI DT.1.11.1997. EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 23.6.1998 IN O.P. NO. 10895/98 V OF THIS COURT. EXT.P10 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. SY(1)/50705/98/DPI DT.23.10.98. EXT.P11 - TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 11.11.1998. EXT.P12 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. SYI/50705/98/DPI DTD. 26.11.1998. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... O.P No. 13715 of 1999 ................................................. Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T In 1973, the public service commission appears to have invited applications under the Special Employment Scheme for selection to the post of HSAs in various districts in Kerala State. The petitioner applied pursuant to the same and was selected. On such selection the petitioner was required to opt for a particular district for appointment. Since the petitioner's husband was working in Idukki district as an employee in the Kerala State Electricity Board, the petitioner chose Idukki district and she was appointed in Government High School, Vellathooval. She joined duty on 22.7.1974. After 5 years, when the petitioner's husband was transferred to Thrissur district, the petitioner sought for a transfer to Thrissur district. Petitioner's application was allowed and the petitioner was transferred to Government High School, Peechi on 14.9.1979. Since then the petitioner has been working in Thrissur District in various schools in that District. By proceedings dated 25.4.1995, produced as Ext.P1, the Director of Public Instructions published O.P No. 13715 of 1999 -2- a seniority list of High School Assistants for the period from 1.1.1971 to 31.12.1975, in which the petitioner was shown as rank No. 628 and her date of joining duty was shown as 22.7.1974. In accordance with that seniority, the petitioner was considered for promotion and she was promoted as Assistant Educational Officer by Ext.P2 order dated 27.5.1997. On such promotion, the petitioner requested the headmistress to relieve her from duty from her school. The headmistress did not oblige. The petitioner therefore filed a representation before the 2nd respondent, Director of Public Instruction to relieve the petitioner immediately so as to enable her to join as AEO, Ambalapuzha. However, by Ext.P5, the 2nd respondent informed the headmistress of the petitioner's school that the petitioner need not be relieved since she is an inter-district transferee to Thrissur district from Idukki District and she is not eligible for rank no. 628 in the seniority list. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause why her seniority should not be changed on the basis of her inter-district transfer to Thrissur. Although the petitioner filed Ext.P7 reply, the 2nd respondent, by Ext.P8 order dated 1.11.1997, confirmed the O.P No. 13715 of 1999 -3- cancellation of her rank No. 628. The petitioner challenged Ext.P8 order before this court in O.P. No. 10895 of 1998, in which, by Ext.P9 judgment, this court quashed Ext.P8 order and directed reconsideration of the petitioner's case after considering the contention of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P10 notice was issued to the petitioner for a personal hearing before the Administrative Assistant (Purchase) of the DPI on 11.11.1998. The petitioner filed a detailed written statements by Ext.P11. Thereafter the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P12 order dated 26.11.1998 confirming the cancellation of her rank no. 628 assigned to the petitioner in Ext.P1 seniority list. The petitioner challenges Ext.P12 order in this writ petition. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that since the petitioner's selection under the Special Employment Scheme was state-wise, petitioner's appointment is also state-wise and therefore on transfer from Idukki district to the Thrissur district the petitioner would not lose her seniority. Therefore in Thrissur district also the petitioner is entitled to seniority based on her date of initial appointment in Idukki district is the contention raised. O.P No. 13715 of 1999 -4- 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent wherein the stand taken is that although the selection of the petitioner under the Special Employment Scheme was state wise, the appointment is not state-wise, but district-wise. Specific contention raised in the counter affidavit is that persons who were recruited under the Special Employment Scheme were given option to chose a district for appointment. The petitioner opted for Idukki district and therefore she was appointed in the unit of Idukki district. Once she was appointed in Idukki district, she belongs to the Idukki district for the purpose of seniority and when she opts for inter-district transfer she would join in the transferee district only as the junior most in that district in accordance with the Government order regulating inter-district transfer, is the contention raised. 4. The petitioner contends that in the order of transfer there was no stipulation that the petitioner would lose her seniority. 5. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 6. Although the petitioner's selection may be state-wise for the purpose of special employment, in so far as there is no state- O.P No. 13715 of 1999 -5- wise cadre of HSAs in Kerala State, the petitioner had to necessarily choose a district for the purpose of appointment. The petitioner admits that she chose the district of Idukki since her husband was working there. When there is no separate cadre of HSAs in the state having state wise seniority the petitioner cannot claim separate treatment as a state-wise recruitee for the purpose of seniority. Once she chose Idukki district as her district of choice, notwithstanding the fact that she was selected state wise, she belonged to Idukki district only for the purpose of appointment. Therefore when the petitioner by herself sought a transfer from Idukki district to Thrissur district since her husband was transferred, that transfer can only be an inter-district transfer under G.O. No. 4 / 61. Necessarily such transfer would entail all the consequences stipulated in that G.O. That G.O. stipulates that a person transferred from one district to another would join in the latter district as the junior- most among others in that district in the same category. In fact in Ext.P13 service book of the petitioner it has been entered thus: “inter-district transfer of the teacher has been ordered as per memo No.31.5.5430/79 Date 31.8.1979 of O.P No. 13715 of 1999 -6- the Dist. Edl. Officer, Trichur under powers deligated in G.O.(Ms) 285/65/Edn. Dated 28.2.65 and he will take rank in the new Dist. i.e. Trichur only with effect from the Date of joining duty i.e.14.9.1979” G.O. No. 285 of 65 referred to thereunder specifically states thus: “13. In all these cases of transfers, the transferees will be considered as the junior most in the new district in which they join duty. They will take their seniority in the new district to which they have been transferred only with effect from the date of their joining duty in that district.” 7. In the above circumstances, in Thrissur district the petitioner would get seniority only with effect from the date of inter-district transfer to that district, namely, 14.9.1979, which only has been held by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P12 order. I do not find anything wrong with that order. Accordingly the writ petition fails and is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs