IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 19816 of 2007(H)
1. ANITHA P.P., D/O.KRISHNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
... Respondent
2. SENIOR JOINT DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL
3. SUPERINTENDENT, TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL,
4. SMT.MANCHARI.K., INSTRUCTRESS,
5. SMT.SHYLAJA VADAVATHI, TRADE ILNSTRUCTOR
For Petitioner :SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE
For Respondent :SRI.P.M.PAREETH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :26/07/2007
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER, J.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.16476 & 19816 OF 2007
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of July, 2007
JUDGMENT
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the materials available on record, I am satisfied that
these two writ petitions can be disposed of without considering
the merit of the rival contentions raised by the parties.
2. It is on record that petitioner in W.P.(C)No.16476/07
has been working in the Tailoring and Garment Making Centre
at Dharmadom for the last 17 years while petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.19816/07 has been working in the same centre for the last
22 years.
3. When W.P.(C)No.16476/07 was moved by the
petitioner, challenging her transfer from Dharmadom to
Thalankara in Kasargod, an interim direction was issued to
respondent no.2 to consider Ext.P3 representation submitted by
her and take a decision thereon expeditiously. Accordingly,
respondent no.2 passed Ext.P4 order which is produced in W.P.
(C)19816/07. By the said order, petitioner in W.P.(C)
W.P.(C)No.16476 & 19816 OF 2007
:: 2 ::
No.19816/07 was ordered to be transferred from Dharmadom
to Thalankara. This was done in order to accommodate the
petitioner in W.P.(C)16476/07 at Dharmadom. That is how W.P.
(C)No.19816/07 has been filed challenging Ext.P4 order passed
by the second respondent. Yet another fall out of the order
passed by respondent no.2 is that respondent no.4 in W.P.(C)
No.16476/07 who had been transferred from Kasaragod to
Dharmadom may face a threat of displacement, if both the
petitioners are allowed to continue at Dharmadom. Anyhow,
her transfer is also challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.16476/07. In short, the issue has become a little more
complex after issuance of Ext.P4 order.
4. Admittedly, petitioner in W.P.(C)No.19816/07 and
respondent no.4 in W.P.(C)No.16476/07 were not heard at the
time when Ext.P4 order was passed. Petitioners in the two writ
petitions have raised a common contention that respondent
no.4 can be accommodated against the post of Junior Instructor
at Dharmadom itself without disturbing them. In my view it is a
W.P.(C)No.16476 & 19816 OF 2007
:: 3 ::
matter to be considered by respondent no.2. Therefore, Ext.P4
order passed by respondent no.2 in W.P.(C)No.19816/07 is
quashed.
5. Respondent no.2 shall take a fresh decision in the
matter after affording opportunity to the petitioners,
respondent no.4 and any other candidate who is likely to be
affected by any order that may be passed. This shall be done as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear
that it will be open to respondent no.2 to take a decision in the
matter in the light of the rules and regulations governing in the
matter of transfer and appointments in the department.
Writ petitions are disposed of as above.
A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE
jes