IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2011 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 24007 of 2011(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.B.AJITHAKUMAR, PRINCIPAL (SPECIAL GRADE), KERALA COLLEGIATE EDUCATION SERVICE, RESIDING AT CHAITHRAM, THAMPURAN NAGAR, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-10. 2. S.VALSALAKUMARI, PRINCIPAL (SPECIAL GRADE), KERALA COLLEGIATE EDUCATION SERVICE, RESIDING AT 6/182(9), P.K.P.ROAD, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-13. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION SERVICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. P.G.SUSHAMA, PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT WOMEN'S COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. T.PREMLAL, PRINCIPAL, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX EXT.P1-TRUE COPY OF ORDER PROMOTING THE PETITIONERS AS PRINCIPAL EXT.P2-TRUE COPY OF ORDER DECLARING THE PROBATION OF THE FIRST PETITIONERs EXT.P3-TRUE COPY OF DO. OF THE SECOND PETITIONER EXT.P4-TRUE COPY OF GO DATED 30.6.2011 EXT.P5-TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DT.8.6.2011 EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.26.8.2011 // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.24007 of 2011 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of December, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioners who are working as Principals (Special Grade), are aggrieved by the denial of a posting in the Special Grade Colleges to which they have submitted their choice. Mainly it is contended that respondents 3 and 4 who are juniors to them and not Principals of the special grade colleges have been favoured by such postings. 2. Going by the facts pleaded in the writ petition, it can be seen that the petitioners have been appointed by promotion as Principals by Ext.P1. The first petitioner was promoted and posted as Principal in Government College, Tirur and the second petitioner was promoted and posted as Principal in Government College, Nedumangad. They have completed their probation as evident from Exts.P2 and P3 orders. Ext.P4 is the copy of the select list published for further promotion to the post of Principal (Special Grade). Therein, they have been included as serial Nos.3 and 4. Respondents 3 and 4 were holding the posts of Senior Lecturers and have been included for promotion to the post of Principal as serial Nos.1 and 2 therein. WPC.24007/2011 2 3. The petitioners are natives of Thiruvananthapuram and have opted Thiruvananthapuram as their home station. Two vacancies arose respectively in the University College, Thiruvananthapuram and Government Women's College, Thiruvananthapuram, due to promotion and retirement in March 2011. It is pointed out that these two colleges are Special Grade Colleges among the seven Special Grade Colleges in the State. 4. Serial Nos.1 and 2 in Ext.P4 select list did not opt for Thiruvananthapuram and therefore the petitioners were expecting posting in Thiruvananthapuram district. Both of them have submitted representations and one of the representations is produced as Ext.P5. They are retiring from service on 31.3.2012. Ext.P6 is the order promoting them as Special Grade Principals along with others. Going by the same, the first petitioner was promoted as Principal (Special Grade) and posted at Government Victoria College, Palakkad and the second petitioner is promoted and posted at Maharaja's College, Ernakulam. They have been transferred from the respective colleges wherein they were working, to these Special Grade Colleges. 5. It is pointed out that even though respondents 3 and 4 are eligible for promotion only as Principal, they have been posted in the two Special WPC.24007/2011 3 Grade colleges, viz. University College, Thiruvananthapuram and Government Women's College, Thiruvananthapuram. It is alleged that the same is done without considering the claim of the petitioners and violating their seniority. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader. Even though notice in the writ petition has been served on respondents 3 and 4, they have not appeared and thus are not contesting the matter. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the Special Rules, viz. Special Rules for Kerala Collegiate Education Service, 1994. It is pointed out that the post of Principal (Special Grade) is to be filled up by promotion from the category of Principal. Therefore, considering their seniority and inclusion in the select list for promotion to the post of Principal (Special Grade), the petitioners ought to have been given a posting in the Special Grade colleges of their choice, especially since two vacancies in such Colleges in Thiruvananthapuram were available as on the date of Ext.P6. Respondents 3 and 4 are not entitled to be posted as Principals (Special Grade) as they have not been promoted as such. They were included in the select list only for promotion as Principal. Therefore, it is pointed out that ignoring the seniority as well as eligibility to hold the WPC.24007/2011 4 higher post of Principal (Special Grade), respondents 3 and 4 have been favoured by giving a posting in the Special Grade Colleges itself. 8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is mentioned that the petitioners have chosen Thiruvananthapuram as their home station while they were working as Lecturers. The selection of home station is not allowable to those who work in the capacity of Principals (Special Grade), as the appointment of Principal is on state-wise basis. A person who is promoted as Principal (Special Grade) cannot insist on a particular college or a district of his choice. It is pointed out that the transfer norms are applicable only to college lecturers. Accordingly, it is contended that the prayer of the petitioners for a transfer to Thiruvananthapuram district is not justifiable. The fact that the petitioners are seniors, is admitted in para 5 of the counter affidavit. But it is stated that they have no superior claim over respondents 3 and 4 in getting transfer to Thiruvananthapuram. The actual reason is not properly explained. Ext.R1 (a) is an order passed subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, provisionally promoting respondents 3 and 4 under Rule 31(a)(i) of Part II of KS & SSR, to the cadre of Principal (Special Grade), and were thus promoted. 9. A reading of the Special Rules will show that the post of Principal WPC.24007/2011 5 (Special Grade) is a higher post than the post of Principal and it has to be filled up by promotion from the category of Principal. The inclusion in the select list depends upon various factors including seniority. Recognising these factors, they have been included in the select list for promotion as Principal (Special Grade). 10. At the time of issuance of Ext.P6 order, evidently respondents 3 and 4 were working only as Selection Grade Lecturers which is evident from Ext.P6 itself. They have been promoted only to the post of Principal. It is not disputed in the counter affidavit that the University College, Thiruvananthapuram and Government Women's College, Thiruvananthapuram are Special Grade Colleges. Therefore, the question is whether, overlooking the claim of the petitioners, respondents 3 and 4 have got a right to be posted in those colleges. Evidently, their claims will have to yield to the rights of the persons like the petitioners who are Special Grade Principals and are seniors to them. 11. The counter affidavit does not effectively attempt any answer to the reasons for rejection of the claim of the petitioners for a posting in Thiruvananthapuram. In Ext.P5 it is pointed out that the second petitioner is due to retire from service in March 2012 and she has only nine months left to retire from service. Similar is the case of the other petitioner also. WPC.24007/2011 6 Evidently, their request has not been considered. In an attempt to explain away the claim of the petitioners, what is pointed out is that the Selection Grade Lecturers had to be considered for posting in Special Grade Colleges as there were number of vacancies. But evidently, those Selection Grade Lecturers like respondents 3 and 4 were only promoted as Principals and not as Special Grade Principals at the time of Ext.P6. Even going by Ext.R1(a), it is only provisional promotion to the post of Special Grade Principal. 12. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that going by the transfer norms, persons who have only two years to retire, will be posted in a station of their choice. This is so provided in the case of transfer norms of Government employees also. But the stand taken in the counter affidavit is that transfer norms are applicable only for Lecturers. The transfer norms adopted by the Government as per G.O.(Ms) 27/94/H.Edn. dated 21.2.1994 is one prescribed for College Teachers, not specifically describing them as Lecturers or Principals. Therefore, normally there should not be any objection for application of the same. Even if such norms have not been specifically made applicable to Principals as now contended, there is no harm in adopting the principles therein as far as the post of Principal (Special Grade) is concerned, so as to avoid arbitrariness and to have a fair procedure. The same will enable the WPC.24007/2011 7 Government to act fairly and reasonably and not arbitrarily. 13. It can be seen that the petitioners have been granted promotion as Special Grade Principals based on their seniority, merit, ability and inclusion of their names in the select list. Admittedly, respondents 3 and 4 are their juniors. While the petitioners were Principals, they were only Selection Grade Lecturers. When the petitioners became Principals (Special Grade), they became only Principals. Automatically, therefore, they have no right to be posted as Principals in Special Grade Colleges. Of course, the Government will have to appoint adequate number of persons so that the post of Principal in Special Grade Colleges are also filled up. There ought to have been equal consideration of petitioners also, as by giving the posting, nobody would have been affected since there were open vacancies in Thiruvananthapuram. 14. Therefore, even in the absence of transfer norms governing the post of Special Grade Principals and Principals, so as to act fairly and reasonably the Government could have recognised the seniority of the petitioners as a relevant criteria which is a safe and correct one. Apart from the same, they are going to retire from service on 31.3.2012, which also is a relevant criteria as applied to various categories of Government officers and employees. The promotion obtained by respondents 3 and 4 to the post of WPC.24007/2011 8 Special Grade Principals is only provisional and not regular, going by Ext.R1(a) which is subsequent to the filing of the writ petition. Therefore, as on the date of filling up of the post by Ext.P6, in the Special Grade Colleges at Thiruvananthapuram, they were not even provisionally promoted. This aspect will support the plea of the petitioners. 15. Herein, the petitioners were already posted as Principals prior to their promotion as Special Grade Principals and had submitted representations well in advance pointing out vacancies. In the light of the above also, it can be seen that the refusal to consider their request for a posting in Thiruvananthapuram is really unsupportable and arbitrary. 16. Respondents 3 and 4 have also not contested the claims of the petitioners herein. Evidently, they cannot have a better claim than the petitioners, as the Colleges to which the petitioners seek a posting, are Special Grade Colleges. 17. In that view of the matter, Ext.P6 to the extent to which it grants posting to respondents 3 and 4 in the University College, Thiruvananthapuram and Government Women's College, Thiruvananthapuram is quashed. There will be a direction to the Government to pass appropriate orders giving a posting to the petitioners in those colleges and orders will be passed with regard to their posting as well WPC.24007/2011 9 as for giving suitable posting to respondents 3 and 4 within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/