IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2010 / 23RD ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30162 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. RAJEEVAN.V.K., HSA (MALAYALAM) SNT HSS, KANNUR. 2. LETHA.K.C., HSA (PS) SNT HSS, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY SECRETARY GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANNUR. 3. THE MANAGER, SN TRUSTS SCHOOLS, KOLLAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.30162 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT The first petitioner Rajeevan was working as HSA (Malayalam) in SNTHSS, Shornur from 7.7.2005 onwards. His appointment was approved by the District Educational Officer, Ottappalam with effect from 1.2.2006, as per the proceedings dated 24.11.2009. The second petitioner Letha was appointed as HSA (Physical Science) in SNTHSS, Cherthala with effect from 17.7.2000. That appointment was also approved as evidenced by Exhibit P2. By Exhibit P4 order of transfer dated 20.5.2010, the first petitioner was transferred to SNTHSS, Kannur. Subhash K., who was working as HSA (Malayalam) in SNTHSS, Kannur, was transferred to SNTHSS, Shornur where the first petitioner was working. By Exhibit P4 order, the second petitioner was transferred from SNTHSS, Cherthala to SNTHSS, Kannur. By the same order, Soumya P.T., who was working in SNTHSS, Kannur, was transferred to SNTHSS, Cherthala. It is stated by the petitioners that the appointment of Subhash and Soumya, WPC No.30162/2010 2 who were working in SNTHSS, Kannur, were duly approved and they were getting salary. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on the transfer of Subhash and Soumya to Shornur and Cherthala respectively, they are getting salary as evidenced by Exhibits P6(a) and P6(b). However, the transfer of the petitioners were not approved by the District Educational Officer as per Exhibit P5 order. Exhibit P5 order reads as follows : “I invite your attention to the reference cited. The appointment of Sri.Subhash.K., HSA, Mal, and Smt.Soumya P.T. had been approved as per G.O.(MS) No.19/09/G.Edn. dated 9.2.2009. The G.O. insisted that the vacancy due to transfer of these teachers should be filled up by appointing protected teacher. Hence, the transfer of Smt.Latha.K.C., HSA, PS and Sri.Rajeevan.V.K., HSA, Mal., cannot be approved.” 2. Prima facie, Exhibit P5 order is unsustainable. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners WPC No.30162/2010 3 are not getting salary from June 2010 onwards after their transfer to Kannur. It is pointed out that the persons who were transferred from Kannur to the schools from which the petitioners were transferred are getting salary, after transfer also. 3. There is no dispute that Subhash and Soumya were getting salary while they were working in SNTHSS, Kannur since their appointments were duly approved. Therefore, there is no justification for denying salary to the petitioners. The prayers of the petitioners in the Writ Petition are to quash Exhibit P5 order, to approve the transfer of the petitioners and to disburse the salary due to them from June 2010 onwards. As per Exhibit P5 order dated 15.7.2010, the District Educational Officer held that the vacancies due to the transfer of Subhash and Soumya should be filled up by appointing protected teachers. 4. The petitioners are entitled to file a revision before the Government challenging Exhibit P5 order under Rule 92 of Chapter XIVA KER. The learned counsel for the petitioners WPC No.30162/2010 4 submitted that since the petitioners are not getting salary from June 2010 onwards quite on unjustifiable grounds, the petitioners were constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. I am of the view that there is no justification at all to deny salary to the petitioners. There is also no dispute that they are working in SNTHSS, Kannur. There is also no dispute that the petitioners were getting salary in the schools where they were working. It is also not disputed that Subhash and Soumya, while working in SNTHSS, Kannur, were getting salary and they are getting salary even now. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows : (a) If the petitioners file a revision against Exhibit P5 order before the first respondent within one month from today, the first respondent shall consider and dispose of the same within a WPC No.30162/2010 5 period of three months from the date of filing of the revision, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, the Manager and any other affected party. (b) The petitioners shall be paid arrears salary from June 2010 onwards within a period of three weeks and the respondents shall continue to pay salary to the petitioners until the Revision is decided by the Government. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl