IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15796 of 2009(T) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- C.KANCHANA,KALATHIL HOUSE, VAIKOM P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PERSONAL ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. MR.P.SANJAY SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON MR.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. SECRETARY,GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.15796 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated 9th June, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.P.Sanjay, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Anu Sivaraman, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 2. The petitioner who is presently working as Personal Assistant in the office of the District Educational Officer, Ernakulam has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2 order dated 5.6.2009 passed by the Director of Public Instruction transferring and posting her as Personal Assistant to the District Educational Officer, Chavakkad. The petitioner contends that she was posted at Ernakulam only by Ext.P1 order dated 28.2.2009 and that her transfer to Chavakkad within three months thereafter, is not in the exigencies of service or for administrative reasons. She contends that the order of transfer has been passed at the behest of vested interests. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted on instructions that there were complaints that the petitioner was irregular in attending office and was not attending to her duties. It is also stated that the Deputy Director of Education, Ernakulam conducted a surprise visit on 6.6.2009 and that after such WP(C).No.15796/2009 2 surprise inspection the Deputy Director reported that the petitioner is lethargic in attending to her duties. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that it was in view of the complaints received from various persons that the petitioner was transferred out from Ernakulam to Chavakkad. The learned Government Pleader also made available to me a copy of the report submitted by the Deputy Director of Education, Ernakulam after the inspection conducted on 6.6.2009. The report reads as follows: “A surprise visit was conducted on 6/6/09 in the District Educational Office, Ernakulam. Smt.C.A.Kanjana was holding additional charge of the District Educational Officer, Ernakulam from April 2009 onwards. She joined duty in the District Educational Office as Personal Assistant to the District Educational Officer Ernakulam on 7/3/09. It is noted at the time of visit that she is irregular in attending office and at the same time more than 200 files relating to aided school matters and other matters of urgency are kept pending with her from the date on which she assumed charge. Majority of the files pertain to approval of appointments of aided school teachers, non teaching staff and grade fixation to teachers. Her lethargic attitude in attending to the files evoked wide spread complaint and allegations from different corners. The inordinate delay in taking timely action on the files kept idle with Smt.C.A.Kanjana point to dereliction of duty and administrative inefficiency on her part. Such a situation has totally disrupted the smooth functioning of the office of the District Educational Office Ernakulam. WP(C).No.15796/2009 3 The Aided school staff members had to wait for an indefinite period to get their legitimate claims sanctioned. More over the monthly salary bill of aided school staff got unduly delayed due to the irregular attendance of Smt.C.A.Kanjana who is the counter signing authority of aided school establishment bill. Thus the apathy and inefficiency has resulted in undue delay in getting the claims of teaching and non teaching staff of aided school. Such an attitude is most unbecoming of a responsible officer like Smt.C.A.Kanjana who is expected to perform her duties with utmost care and diligence. In this circumstance it is recommended that stringent action may be taken against Smt.C.A.Kanjana Personal Assistant who is now holding the full additional charge of District Educational Officer, Ernakulam for dereliction of duty, irregularity and administrative inefficiency.” 4. It is evident from the report submitted by the Deputy Director of Education, Ernakulam that the petitioner has not been attending to her duties and that she was lethargic in disposing of files. The visit report submitted by the Deputy Director of Education reveals a very sorry state of affairs. In such circumstances, I am not persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's transfer was at the behest of vested interests. A learned single Judge of this Court has in Ramachandran Nair v. Director of Training (ILR 1992(3) Ker. 149) held that a transfer intended to ensure efficiency in administration and maintenance of discipline in an establishment cannot be termed as arbitrary or discriminatory. In my WP(C).No.15796/2009 4 opinion, on the facts disclosed in the report submitted by the Deputy Director of Education, Ernakulam after the inspection conducted on 6.6.2009, it cannot be stated that the petitioner's transfer from Ernakulam was not in the exigencies of service or for administrative reasons. The challenge to Ext.P2 cannot therefore be entertained. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that seeking a transfer and posting to a station other than Ernakulam the petitioner has filed Ext.P4 representation before the Secretary to Government, General Education Department. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that notwithstanding the view taken by this Court, the Secretary to Government, General Education Department may be directed to consider Ext.P4 representation and pass orders thereon within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the Secretary to Government, General Education Department will consider the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P4 representation and take decision thereon. I accordingly direct that notwithstanding the view taken by me that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, the Secretary to Government, General Education Department shall consider the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P4 representation dated 8.6.2009 and pass orders thereon expeditiously and in any WP(C).No.15796/2009 5 event within six weeks from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed subject to the above observation. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS