IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2195 of 2009(J) ------------------------------------------ CMA.52/2008 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM OS.675/2008 of II ADDL.M.C., ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: KARTHIKA, D/O. LATE KUMARA SWAMY, NADAKKAPARAMBIL, PONEKKARA, ELAMAKKARA.P.O, KOCHI-26. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: 1. PRINCIPAL, AMRITHA VIDYALAYAM, KUNNMPURAM, EDAPPALLY NORTH.P.O, KOCHI-24. 2. GENERAL MANAGER AND CO-ORDINATOR, AMRITA VIDYALAYAM SCHOOLS, AMRITHAPURI.P.O, KOLLAM - 690 525. 3. MATHA AMRITHANANTHAMAYI MATH, REP. BY SECRETARY, AMRITHAPURI, KOLLAM - 690 525. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No.2195 of 2009 J -------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.675/08 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam. Respondents are the defendants in the said suit. Exhibit P1 is the plaint in the suit. The prayer in the suit is for a decree declaring that Exhibit P10 transfer order dated 10.4.2008 issued by the second respondent, transferring her to the Amritavidyalayam, Madhurai from the Amritavidyalayam, Ernakulam is illegal, ultra vires and void and for a consequential decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from enforcing and operating the transfer order and relieving order issued by the second respondent. An interim prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from enforcing and operating the transfer order dated 10.4.2008 was also sought for filing Exhibit P2 application. WPC 2195/09 2 2. Exhibit P3 counter was filed by respondents 1 and 2 and Exhibit P4 counter was filed by the third respondent to Exhibit P2 injunction application. Exhibits P5 and P6 are the reply affidavits filed by the petitioner/plaintiff respectively to Exhibits P3 and P4 counter affidavits. The trial court, as per Exhibit P7 order on Exhibit P2 injunction application, granted injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from enforcing the transfer order, transferring the petitioner/plaintiff to the Amritavidyalayam, Madhurai pending disposal of the suit. Exhibit P7 order was assailed by the respondents/defendants before the I Additional District Court filing C.M.A.No.52/08 and the appeal was allowed by the first appellate court, vide Exhibit P8 judgment, setting aside the injunction granted by the trial court. The prayer in this writ petition is to set aside Exhibit P8 judgment passed by the first appellate court in C.M.A.No.52/08. WPC 2195/09 3 3. It is vehemently contended before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that Exhibit P10 transfer order is issued with vengeance and mala fides, as the petitioner and a few other teachers demanded enhancement in salary, as the salary that was being paid to them was very meagre. 4. Exhibit P11 representation submitted by several of the staff of the Amritavidyalayam, Ernakulam before the Principal of the School on 4.7.2007 shows that on the day previous to that day, all the signatories, who submitted the said representation, had struck work and consequently, they were suspended by the Management and that those teachers were offering to resume work allegedly on the promise given by the Management, Legal Advisor and Auditor of the Management to enhance their salary and that no further action would be taken against them. Exhibit P11 representation is seen to have acknowledged by the Principal of the Amritavidyalayam and not by the WPC 2195/09 4 Management. 5. Exhibit P12 is the reply given by the Principal to the petitioner/plaintiff in reply to her letter dated 3.7.2007, wherein, the Principal has stated that in view of her representation dated 4.7.2007 (Exhibit P11), her letter dated 3.7.2007 assumes no relevance; that her representation dated 4.7.2007, acknowledged by him, will be presented before the Management for necessary and appropriate action; that despite her efforts in providing false information to the media to lower down the reputation of the institution, keeping in mind the object of the school, the education and general welfare of the students and staff, the representatives of the Management have decided to allow her to continue as a teacher with effect from 5.7.2007, pending consideration of the disciplinary proceedings; that accordingly she is allowed to resume duty as a teacher from 5.7.2007 and advising her to perform her duty as a teacher and to work WPC 2195/09 5 with the Management as a team and family to achieve the object of the school to provide quality education and to mould the younger generation with good conduct, character and discipline and requesting her to join the hands with the Management in the process of building the nation through education, discipline and character. 6. Exhibit P12 is dated 9.7.2007. Exhibit P11 is dated 4.7.2007 and the letter of the petitioner under reference in Exhibit P12 is one dated 3.7.2007, which is not produced. Exhibit P10 transfer order is one passed as late as on 10.4.2008, namely, for the next academic year and not during the relevant year in which actions were initiated against the petitioner. It is seen from Exhibit P11 that the whole issue was precipitated by the teaching staff of the school demanding hike in salary and they even boycotted their work for one day, which resulted in their suspension. I cannot, but observe the conduct of the teachers, WPC 2195/09 6 including the petitioner, in boycotting their work of teaching the students of the school advancing claims for enhancement in salary, as that of industrial workers or labour class, unmindful of the students of tender age, who were sent to school by their parents with the intention of giving them proper education. There is absolutely no justification for the teachers in boycotting their work, whatever be the reason alleged for the same. 7. Even assuming for argument's sake that the transfer was for the reason that the petitioner has taken part in boycotting the work demanding hike in salary, I do not find any reason for the Manager to be faulted in transferring her. From Exhibit P10, it is seen that no mala fides can be so alleged, as several of the teaching staff from Ernakulam, Kodungallur, Palakkad, Kannur and Pathanamthitta are transferred, among whom, one teacher is transferred from Palakkad to Ahmedabad, another is to Karwar in Karnataka, another is from Ernakulam WPC 2195/09 7 to Hyderabad, another is to Coimbatore, yet another to Chennai and still another to Ettimadai near Coimbatore and two others to Durgapur and Tirupur. Boycotting of work etc. has happened only at Ernakulam and not at Kodungallur, Palakkad, Kannur or Pathanamthitta and the transfer, therefore, cannot be stated to be as an act from the part of the Management to wreck vengeance against the petitioner. 8. Counsel for the respondents/defendants placed before me the agreement executed by the petitioner/plaintiff on 17.6.1998 while taking up employment in the school at Ernakulam as a Primary Teacher on a monthly salary of Rs.3,203/- in the first instance, while on probation for a period of one year and thereafter in the pay scale of Rs.1125-25-1150-30-1720 plus allowances as applicable in accordance with the Service Rules. Certainly, the salary that would be paid to the petitioner along with allowances, on completion of WPC 2195/09 8 probation, can only be above Rs.3,203/- and not less than that. Petitioner does not disclose as to what is the salary she is drawing along with the allowances and however, that is not a matter for consideration by this Court. In Clause (16) of the said agreement petitioner has agreed that her services are transferable to any school under the Management of Mata Amritanandamayi Math, now existing or to be set up in future in the State of Kerala or outside and upon being served a transfer order, she shall readily report to the new place of posting after availing joining time. It is submitted that the said agreement has been produced and marked as Exhibit B2 in the trial court. Similarly, the Administration Manual of Amritavidyalayam Schools under the Amritavidyalayam Mission, produced as Exhibit B3, shows that under the terms and conditions, dealt with vide Clause (VI) under sub clause (8), it is specifically provided that all employees of Amritavidyalayam are WPC 2195/09 9 liable to be transferred to any of the Vidyalayams anywhere in India and are liable to be transferred from any school/location to any other school/ location by the Management in exigencies of service and for administrative reasons and the employees have no right or claim to work only in one particular school/location and the employees will be given seven days joining time in addition to the journey period, with which, however, Sundays and holidays can be prefixed or suffixed, though it cannot be combined with casual leave or earned leave. Petitioner/plaintiff, who has accepted the job agreeing to the above service conditions and executing an agreement in the nature of Exhibit B2, cannot now complain that among several other teachers, who were transferred from various other schools also to several other distant places, she also was transferred from Ernakulam to Madhurai. Even counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was continuously working at Ernakulam WPC 2195/09 10 for the last more than ten years. There is absolutely no merit in this writ petition assailing Exhibit P8 judgment passed by the District Court, Ernakulam in reversal of Exhibit P7 injunction order passed by the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam. It is also worthy to note in this context that to grant an injunction on the lines asked for, tantamounts to granting a decree in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff even before trial of the suit is had and a decision is taken in the suit. There is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner/ plaintiff and the hardship or balance of convenience cannot be found in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff, who refuses to abide by the service conditions and the agreement entered into by her while accepting the job especially agreeing to the specific condition that she is liable to be transferred to any other school within or outside the State and anywhere in India. WPC 2195/09 11 This writ petition is, thus, devoid of merit and is dismissed, but, however, without costs. It is made clear that the observations made in this judgment are only for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition. 21st January, 2009 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv