IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2009 / 30TH ASWINA 1931 WA.No. 2283 of 2009 -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.6248/2009 DATED 19.8.2009 .................... APPELLANT/3RD PARTY: ------------------------------------ SUHARA K.K, JUNIOR LANGUAGE TEACHER, GFUPS KEEZHUR, RESIDING AT AJMERIA MANZIL, THAYALANGADI, KASARAGOD POST, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. THARA P., JUNIOR LANGUAGE TEACHER, PAMPATHADUKKA HOUSE, VANINAGAR POST,KASARGOD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED .BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KASARAGOD 4. EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, KASARAGOD. R2 TO R4 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.A.No.2283 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. A person who is not a party to W.P.(C) No.6248 of 2009 has challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19th August, 2009 allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein. 2. Considering the government order dated 14.7.2009 and the undisputed fact that the writ petitioner/first respondent herein is a physically handicapped person, the learned Single Judge directed the second respondent Deputy Director of Education to regularise her service under the physically handicapped quota and since a vacancy at G.U.P.S., Kasaragod is available, directed the authority to fill up the post by reappointing the writ petitioner against that vacancy. W.A.No.2283 of 2009 - 2 - 3. It is that order which is assailed by the appellant/third party in the present appeal on the ground that in the online transfer preference sought by the appellant, she had given one of her options to this place which is now directed to be allotted to the writ petitioner. It is submitted that the failure of the second respondent to bring it to the notice of the Court that the appellant had sought for such a transfer to the said place has resulted in depriving the appellant to get transfer to that place. 4. At the outset, it is to be noted that the appellant has no absolute right to ask a place for transfer of her choice. Whenever there are vacancies, it is possible that she may or may not be transferred or posted. In fact, the application for transfer filed by the appellant itself shows that she had given option for four places and one of them happens to be the place wherein the writ petitioner has now been posted. W.A.No.2283 of 2009 - 3 - 5. In our view, the appellant has no right to dictate terms to the employer as to her transfer to a particular place because of her convenience and as such she has no locus standi to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge. In view of this conclusion, we find no merit in the writ appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice A.K. Basheer, Judge vns