IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WA.No. 2719 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.32882/2009 Dated 19/11/2009 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER IN WRIT PETITION ----------------------------------------- K.PRASANNA, W/O.KUTTAPPAN, REHABILITATION TECHNICIAN, MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE, RESIDING AT LD NO.1 QUARTERS, GOVT.MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, P.O.MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.ALEX RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS IN WRIT PETITION ------------------------------------------ 1. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 2. PHILIP MATHEW, EEG TECHNICIAN, RESIDING AT LD QUARTERS NO.8, MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, P.O.MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE. 3. PRINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE. 4. SECRETARY (HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, GOVT.PLEADER, SMT.R.BINDU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A. No. 2719 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 1st day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner. She is a Rehabilitation Technician working under the 1st respondent. From Calicut Medical College now she has been transferred by the impugned order Ext.P4 to Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. The said order reads as follows. “As per the letter cited, the Principal, Medical college, Calicut has reported that Smt.Prasanna, Rehabilitation Technician and Sri.Philip Mathew, EEG Technician have been occupying quarters No.LD-1 and LD.8 respectively. Reports in the form of complaints/petitions are there that both of them are in hostility that even led to physical assaults and complaints to police against each other. In some instances, their family members or neighbouring occupants are also involved either as witness or victims or otherwise as alleged W.A. No.2719/2009 - 2 - assailants. This has created much disturbance to the peace and tranquility in the neighbourhood and Medical College campus and some complaints are reported to have reached before courts. Meetings, advices, compromise talks, warnings etc. were of no use, despite some interim break and complaints from their neighbours also have been received. Sine the allegations are of criminal nature and not at all related to duty or happening in the work place and above all the petition/cases are reported to have been pending either before court or under police investigation. In the above circumstances, Smt.Prasanna, Rehabilitation Technician (leather), Medical College, Calicut is transferred and posted as such at Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram with immediate effect.” 2. Challenging the above quoted order, the Writ Petition was filed. The grounds taken in the Writ Petition were that the appellant was innocent and her rival, Mr.Philip Mathew, was responsible for the happenings mentioned in the above quoted order. But, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition giving liberty to the appellant to W.A. No.2719/2009 - 3 - move the Government pointing out her grievances against Ext.P4, which is an order passed by the Director of Medical Education. Dis-satisfied with the said judgment, this Writ Appeal is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that she is innocent and Mr.Philip Mathew alone was responsible for the happenings dealt with in Ext.P4. Going by Ext.P4, we notice that the view taken by the Director of Medical Education is that both of them are equally responsible. If the appellant has a case that the findings in Ext.P4 are factually incorrect, her remedy lies in moving the Government. At this stage, the Writ Court can only proceed on the basis that what is stated in Ext.P4 is correct. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the transfer during the middle of the academic year is causing great inconvenience. The guideline that transfer should not ordinarily be made during the middle of the academic year is meant for routine transfers. The same does not apply to transfers made in exigencies of service as W.A. No.2719/2009 - 4 - the one made under Ext.P4. A transfer can be successfully impugned, if only, it is shown that it is illegal or vitiated by malafidies. Violation of a transfer norm is not a recognised ground for interfering with a transfer by the Court. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE) ps