IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 211 of 2009 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.36074/2008 Dated 09/12/2008 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER: ---------------------------- B.MONIAMMA, H.S.A(MALAYALAM),DEVASWOM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,KANGAZHA. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAJAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY(MANAGER),TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD SCH0OLS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SMT.PUSHPALATHA, H.S.A(MALAYALAM), DEVASWOM BOARD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THIRUVALLA. 3. B.SREEKALA, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MALAYALAM),DEVASWOM BOARD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THIRUVALLA. R1 BY SRI. K.N. VENUGOPALA PAICKER, SC, TDB. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W. A. No. 211 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J The appellant was the writ petitioner. She approached this Court challenging Ext.P3 transfer order by which she has been shifted from Thiruvalla to Kangazha. According to her, the same was done only to accommodate the 2nd respondent in her place and not by reason of any exigency of service. She represented against the said order before the Manager, the 1st respondent herein. This Court directed the Manager to consider her representation. The Manager again rejected it. According to the appellant, the rejection was made on an irrelevant ground. So, she again approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. The learned Single Judge noticed that the academic year has considerably advanced and further the Manager has undertaken to review her case at the appropriate time. In view of the above facts, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal. WA No. 211/2009 -:2:- 2. We notice that, normally, transfer should be made following the rule of seniority while deciding the claims of rival incumbents, in view of mandate of Rule 10(1) of Chapter XIV A KER. Rule 10(5) provides that, if there is deviation from the seniority rule, that order is appealable to the Director of Public Instructions. It is a full fledged appeal which means that the appellate authority can pass any order which should have been passed by the original authority. 3. In view of the efficacious remedy available to the petitioner it was unnecessary for her to approach this Court. The appellate power of the Director is wider than the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 to interfere with the transfer. 4. Confronted with the above position, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for withdrawal of the writ petition itself with liberty to move the appellate authority against Ext.P3 transfer order. The said prayer is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the original petition is dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and her right to invoke the appellate remedy available to her. The contentions of WA No. 211/2009 -:3:- both sides are left open. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE ttb