IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 5TH DECEMBER 2008 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 30186 of 2008(R) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ SHAREENA.K, L.P SCHOOL ASSISTANT, GB LP SCHOOL, MUDUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.SANDHYA RAJU, ADV. SMT.SABNA BABU. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM. *ADDL.R3. P.T. SHEEJA, G.L.P. SCHOOL, KANJIRAMUKKU, PONNANAM, MALAPPURAM (DIST). *IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 15/10/08 IN I.A. 12950/08. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. T.B. REMANI, R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.DIVAKARAN NAIR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.30186/2008-R: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 4TH JUNE 2008. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 5TH JULY 2008. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 19TH JULY 2008 PREFERRED BY THE HEADMISTRESS GOVT. L.P. SCHOOL MUDUR. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 15TH JULY 2008. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 2ND SEPTEMBER 2008. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER DTD. 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3.A: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN W.P.(C). ON 07/02/2008. EXT.R3.B: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER SUBMITTED BY DO.ON 21/01/08. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.30186/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P7 order is under challenge. Petitioner is an LPSA presently working at GBLP School, Mudur in Malappuram District. Going by Ext.P1 disability certificate produced, the petitioner has 40% disability. By Ext.P7 she has been transferred to G.M. U.P. School, Edappal and the additional 3rd respnodent now working at G L.P School, Kanjiramukku, Ponnani is ordered to be posted in her place. 2. According to the petitioner, at the time of general transfer, in view of the fact that her marriage was arranged she had submitted Ext.R3(a) application requesting for transfer to either Kanjiramukku or Valiyamkodu or Purangu. It is stated that, acting upon Ext.R3(a), in May, 2008 she was transferrd to Purangu. However, due to personal reasons, she applied for cancellation of the transfer and that WP(c).No.30186/08 2 in July, 2008 she was transfered back to Puthur, where she is continuing. 3. In the meanwhile, the additional 3rd respondent had applied for transfer to the petitioner's school and complaining that her request was not considered, she had approached this court by filing WP(c).No.22470/2008. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment. In Ext.P6, this court has taken note of the fact that the petitioner, though a party to that writ petition, had not entered appearance and that Ext.P3, the order transferring the petitioner back to Puthur did not contain any reason why the said order was passed. Taking note of all this the writ petition was disposed of directing that the representation made by the additional 3rd respondent shall be considered by the 2nd respondent herein. It was in pursuance to the said judgment Ext.P7 has been passed after hearing the 3rd respondent, the petitioner in WP(c).No.22470/2008. 4. A reading of Ext.P7 shows that the second respondent has proceeded as if he was carrying out the directions in Ext.P6 judgment. On the other hand a reading WP(c).No.30186/08 3 of Ext.P6 show that this court had only directed consideration of the representation made by the additional 3rd respondent and had not dealt with the merits of the claim of either of the parties. Since Ext.P6 does not reflect consideration of the eligibility of the rival claims, I am inclined to hold that Ext.P6 does not reflect a proper consideration of the claims by both sides. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent also pointed out that there are suitable vacancies against which both persons can be considered for convenient accommodation. 5. For the aforesaid reasons I set aside Ext.P7 and direct that the 2nd respondent shall consider the claims of both the petitioner and the additional 3rd respondent with notice to both of them and pass fresh orders in this matter. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. vi ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE WP(c).No.30186/08 4