IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2008 / 17TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 16047 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- SMT.JAYASREE M.G., AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.PRAKASH P.B., TEACHER, AMRITHA VIDHYALAYAM, NORTH KUNNUMPURAM, EDAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CENTRAL BOARDL OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, SIKSHA KENDRA-2, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREET VIHAR, DELHI - 110 092, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE SECRETARY & CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, SHIKSHA SADAN-17, ROUSE AVENUE, NEW DELHI-110 002. 4. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, CHENNAI. 5. MATHA AMRUTHANANDAMAYI MATH, A REGISTERED SOCIETY AMRUTHAPURI, KOLLAM DIST. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SWAMI POURNAMRITHANANDAPURI. 6. M/S.AMRITA VIDYALAYAM, KUNNUMPURAM EDAPPALLY NORTH P.O., ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL. 7. GENERAL MANAGER AND CO-ORDINATOR, AMRITA VIDYALAYAM SCHOOLS, AMRITA VIDYALAYAM HEAD OFFICE, AMRITAPURI P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 AADV. SHRI DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FOR R2 TO R4 ADV. SRI.K.SRIKUMAR FOR R5 ADV. SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN FOR R5 ADV. SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR FOR R5 ADV. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR FOR R6 ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER FOR R6 ADV. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR FOR R7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2008 ALONG WITH W.P.(C)NOS.16048 & 16509 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. ............................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 16047, 16048 & 16509 OF 2008 ............................................................................ Dated this the 8th July, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioners in these Writ Petitions are teachers working in Amrita Vidhyalayam, North Kunnumpuram, Edappally. As per Ext. P4 transfer order dated 10.04.2008 issued by 'Amrita Vidyalayam', the petitioners in these Writ Petitions have been transferred to other institutions run by the fifth respondent-Matha Amruthanandamayi Math. The contention of the petitioners is that there is no corporate educational agency and that each school is affiliated separately. It is also contended that a transfer order like Ext. P4 cannot be issued transferring the petitioners to different schools. The petitioners have also raised various grievances in Ext. P2 and P6 representations submitted by them before the Secretary and Chief Vigilance Officer, C.B.S.E., New Delhi. 2. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petitions are the following: “(i) Declare that Exts. P4 (transfer order) and P7 (rejection order) (not received by the petitioner) issued by 5th and 6th respondents through the hands of the newly formulated 7th respondent against the petitioner is illegal, unjust and unsustainable and vitiated by bias and malafides and is the result of victimisation and the same is contrary to Ext.P1 byelaw. (ii) Declare that the running of the school, the 6th respondent by the 5th respondent after obtaining affiliation from the 2nd respondent is contrary to Ext. P1 byelaws and hence illegal and further declare that the 5th respondent is not entitled to enjoy the W.P.(C) No. 16047, 16048 & 16509 OF 2008 2 privilage of affiliation from the 2nd respondent. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent 2, 3 and 4 to immediately take effective and stern action against the 5th and 6th respondent for having violated the terms of Ext. P1 and communicate such decisions to the petitioner. (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing respondents 2,3 and 4 to take up Exts.P2 and P6 and declare that Exts. P4 and P7 orders issued by the 5th and 6th respondents is illegal and is the result of victimisation for having taken up the cause of exploitation. (v) Pass such other and further reliefs, as may be prayed for hereafter and which are deemed fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. “ 3. On notice, respondents have entered appearance and counter affidavits have been filed. The main contention put forward by the respondents is that the Writ Petitions are not maintainable for the reliefs claimed in the Writ Petitions. The respondents rely on the decision reported in Sophiamma v. Council for Indian School Certificate Examination (2008 (2) KLT 589) in support of their contention. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are pressing for only relief No.(iv) and to that limited extent, the Writ Petitions are maintainable. Respondents have no dispute as regards the maintainability of a Writ Petition for the relief akin to relief No.(iv) prayed for in the Writ Petitions. 6. Adv. Shri Devan Ramachandran, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the C.B.S.E. contended that in respect of relief No.(iv), the petitioners cannot expect the C.B.S.E. to conduct inspection, take evidence and pass orders as is being done in the case of institutions working under the Kerala Educational Rules. In the peculiar set up of things under the C.B.S.E. , the working of educational institutions could not be W.P.(C) No. 16047, 16048 & 16509 OF 2008 3 smoothly undertaken if every now and then teachers make representations and if the C.B.S.E. is expected to dispose of those representations, taking individual case and by deciding individual dispute., it is submitted. At the same time, Shri Devan Ramachandran submitted that periodical inspections can be conducted by a team of inspectors in each school and that the group of teachers in each school can put forward their grievances before the inspection team. He further submits that in so far as Exts. P2 and P6 representations are concerned, such a course can be adopted and the grievance of the petitioners could be taken up for consideration and necessary steps taken, if they are found genuine. This submission is reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that leaving open the remedy of the petitioners for redressal of their grievances and to agitate the matter before the appropriate forum, the Writ Petitions can be disposed of confining their relief to relief No.(iv). Taking note of the submission made by Shri Devan Ramachandran, I am inclined to dispose of the Writ Petitions with a direction to the 4th respondent- the Regional Director, C.B.S.E. to look into the grievances voiced in Exts. P2 and P6 representations and to consider the same during the periodical inspection to be made as usual by the C.B.S.E. It is made clear that at that time, the petitioners will be heard by the 4th respondent. 8. Adv. Shri K. Srikumar and Shri P.K. Suresh Kumar appearing for the contesting respondents submitted that the petitioners have entered into an agreement with the institution wherein they have agreed that they are liable to be transferred to other institutions run by Matha Amruthanandamayi Math and therefore they are not entitled to challenge the order of transfer either in a Writ Petition or before a civil court W.P.(C) No. 16047, 16048 & 16509 OF 2008 4 or to make grievances before C.B.S.E. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not executed any such agreement and contended that the form of agreement relied on by the respondents is contrary to the terms of agreement appended to Ext. P1 affiliation byelaws. These are all matters to be considered by the C.B.S.E. at the time when the inspection is being made as mentioned above. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri C. Varghese Kuriakose is right in his submission that since the Writ Petitions are not being pressed or entertained in so far as reliefs other than the relief No.(iv) are concerned, the rights of the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum, if any, shall be protected. Leaving open the right of the petitioners to move the appropriate forum, if any, under law, the Writ Petitions are dismissed in so far as reliefs other than relief No.(iv) are concerned and relief No.(iv) is disposed of in the manner indicated above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk