IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2008 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 10633 of 2008(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- B.N. LEELAMONI HSA (MATHS),GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL FOR BOYS KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SHRIKUMAR, ADV. SRI.SREEJITH S.NAIR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. V.P.AMBILY, HSA (MATHS) GOVERNMENT H.S.S,VALLIKEEZHU, KAVANAD P.O.,KOLLAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MOHAMOOD T.T, R3 BY ADV. SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR, ADV. SRI.N.B.RAJU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.10633/2008-N: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.A1-3091/2007 DTD. 29/06/2007 OF THE R.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER (P). NO.13/2000 DTD. 27/04/2000. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DTD. 22/11/2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.34441/2007 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 08/02/2008 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A1/82801/07/DPI DTD. 07/03/2008 ISSUED BY THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3.1: COPY OF THE DULY FILED APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER, DTD. 09/03/2007 OF THE R.3. EXT.R3.2: COPY OF THE INFORMATION DTD. 16/07/2007 ISSUED TO THE R.1. UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXT.R3.3: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 16/07/2007 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OF THE R.1. EXT.R3.4: COPY OF THE TRANSFER APPLICATION DTD. 30/03/2007 OF THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 10633 OF 2008 N = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of October 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner and the 3rd respondent are H.S.As. (Maths), working in the Govt. High School for Boys, and Govt. H.S.S. Vallikkazhu, Kavanad, Kollam. 2. It would appear that the petitioner had filed Ext. R3(4) application for transfer opting 3 schools, and the 3rd respondent had submitted Ext. R3(1), requesting for transfer to Govt. H.S. for Boys, Kollam. However, by Ext. P1, the petitioner who was then working in Govt. H.S., Cheriyazheeckal, was transferred and posted to Govt. H.S. for Boys, Kollam. This order is dated 29.6.2007. Consequent on the transfer she joined the post and is working there. 3. The 3rd respondent who had claimed posting to that school, had made a complaint against the transfer of the petitioner and then filed a writ petition before this Court as W.P.(C) No. 34441/07. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext. P3 judgment directing W.P.(C) No. 10633 OF 2008 -2- that the complaint made by her be examined by the Director of Public Instruction with notice to both parties. Accordingly, as authorised by the D.P.I., the Deputy Director heard the parties in pursuance to Ext. P4 notice, and submitted his report. However, the D.P.I. passed Ext. P5 order, holding that the observation of the Deputy Director was unsatisfactory and ordering transfer of the 3rd respondent in the petitioner's place. Though the petitioner's transfer has been cancelled, nothing is stated as to where the petitioner is to be posted. It is challenging this order, the writ petition is filed. 4. Counsel for the petitioner Shri. G. Shrikumar mainly contends that in the impugned order apart from stating that the 3rd respondent is senior to the petitioner, which is also disputed by him, there has not been any examination about the individual hardship by either of the claimants or relative merits of their of their conflicting claims. It is also stated that the order reflects non- application of mind and even consequential order posting the petitioner is not passed. Further, it is also stated that no reason whatsoever is stated as to why the Deputy Director's observations W.P.(C) No. 10633 OF 2008 -3- are unsatisfactory. 5. On the other hand, the counsel for the 3rd respondent would submit that in Ext. R3(4) application, the petitioner had opted for both Kollam as also Kavanad and that consequent to Ext. P5, since she is to be posted to Kavanad, petitioner should have no cause to complain. It is also stated that by Ext. P5 all that has been done is that a mistake committed in ignoring her legitimate request has been corrected. 6. I heard the counsel for the petitioner, the learned Govt. Pleader and also the counsel for the 3rd respondent. 7. What is under challenge is Ext. P5. Though Ext. P5 has been passed in pursuance to Ext. P3 judgment of this Court, this Court has only directed consideration of the representation made by the 3rd respondent. Therefore, it was upto the 3rd respondent to have considered the relative merits of the request made by each of the claimants and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the rules that govern the transfer of H.S.As. However, a reading of Ext. P5 shows that apart from stating that the 3rd respondent is senior to the petitioner no other reason has been stated to justify the W.P.(C) No. 10633 OF 2008 -4- cancellation of the petitioner's transfer and ordering her replacement by the 3rd respondent. The order also does not show as to why the D.P.I. has chosen to hold the report of the Deputy Director to be unsatisfactory. Yet another factor requiring to be noticed is that Ext. P5 does even not give any posting to the petitioner. Therefore, I hold Ext. P5 to be vitiated as relevant matters have not been taken into account by D.P.I. and Ext. P5 is quashed. 8. The 2nd respondent shall reconsider the claim of the 3rd respondent with notice to the petitioner and decide the matter afresh, in the light of the rules that govern the field. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 9. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent, for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-