IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24740 of 2008(T)
1. SINDHU A.P.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DIRECTOR INDUSTRIAL TRAINING
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA
3. THE PRINCIPAL, I.T.I.MALAMPUZHA
4. THE PRINCIPAL, I.T.I.(W)
5. SMT. M.B.BABY
6. SMT. K.V.JALAJA KUMARI
7. SMT. SHANTY
For Petitioner :SRI.V.AJITH NARAYANAN
For Respondent :DR.K.P.SATHEESAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :16/10/2008
O R D E R
P.N.Ravindran, J.
=====================
W.P(C).No.24740 of 2008
=====================
Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is presently working as Junior Instructor in the
Industrial Training Department. She entered service as Junior Instructor
on 27.4.1999. From the date of entry in service till 27.5.2008, she was
stationed at the Industrial Training Institute at Malampuzha in Palakkad
District. During the time of general transfer for the year 2008, the
petitioner applied for a transfer to the I.T.I. (Women), Chalakudy. The
petitioner belongs to Mambra, which is close to Chalakudy. Her request
was considered by the Joint Director of Industrial Training and by Ext.P2
order passed on 23.5.2008, the Joint Director ordered transfer of the
petitioner from the I.T.I., Malampuzha to I.T.I. (W), Chalakudy. Pursuant
to the order transferring the petitioner to Chalakudy, the fifth
respondent was transferred out to I.T.I., Malampuzha. The fifth
respondent admittedly has completed five years of service at the I.T.I.,
Chalakudy. Pursuant to Ext.P2 order of transfer, the Principal, I.T.I.,
Malampuzha relieved the petitioner on 27.5.2008 and she joined duty at
the I.T.I. (W), Chalakudy on 29.5.2008.
WP(C) 24740/08 -: 2 :-
2. Aggrieved by her transfer to I.T.I., Malampuzha, the fifth
respondent filed W.P.(C) No.19067 of 2008 in this Court with
respondents 6 and 7 herein on the party array. The fifth respondent’s
grievance was that respondents 6 and 7 have completed a longer term at
Chalakudy and they ought to have been transferred out instead of
transferring her to Malampuzha. The petitioner herein was admittedly
not a party to W.P.(C) No.19067 of 2008. The fifth respondent did not
also challenge the petitioner’s transfer from the I.T.I., Malampuzha to
I.T.I. (W), Chalakudy. By Ext.R5(e) judgment delivered on 25.6.2008, this
Court disposed of W.P.(C)No.19067 of 2008 with a direction to the
Director of Industrial Training to consider the representation submitted
by the fifth respondent against her transfer to Malampuzha and take a
decision thereon after hearing respondents 6 and 7 as well. As directed
by this Court in Ext.R5(e) judgment, the Director of Industrial Training
heard respondents 5, 6 and 7 and passed Ext.P4 order cancelling the
transfer of the petitioner and the fifth respondent ordered as per Ext.P2.
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order to the extent
it cancels her transfer from Malampuzha to Chalakudy ordered as per
Ext.P2.
3. I have heard Sri.V.Ajith Narayanan, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Sri. P.Nandakumar, the learned Government
Pleader appearing for the official respondents, Sri.C.D.Dileep, the learned
counsel appearing for the fifth respondent, Sri.M.K.Dileep Kumar, the
WP(C) 24740/08 -: 3 :-
learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent and
Dr.K.P.Satheesan, the learned counsel appearing for the seventh
respondent. It is evident from the pleadings in W.P.(C)No.19067 of 2008
and the directions issued by this Court in Ext.R5(e) judgment that the
fifth respondent did not at any point of time have a grievance about the
petitioner’s transfer from I.T.I., Malampuzha to I.T.I.(W), Chalakudy. As
noticed above, right from the date of entry in service in the year 1999 till
she was transferred to Chalakudy, the petitioner was working at
Malampuzha. The petitioner’s entitlement for transfer from Malampuzha
was never questioned by the fifth respondent in W.P.(C) No.19067 of
2008. The only dispute raised by the fifth respondent was that
respondents 6 and 7 herein, who were joined as respondents 3 and 4
respectively in W.P.(C)No.19067 of 2008 had served for a longer term at
Chalakudy and therefore, one among them ought to have been
transferred out instead of transferring out her from Chalakudy. In short,
the directions issued by this Court in Ext.R5(e) judgment will have to be
understood as one directing the Director of Industrial Training to
adjudicate upon the said claim of the fifth respondent. Evidently on the
wrong understanding of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.R5(e)
judgment and without hearing the petitioner, the Director of Industrial
Training passed Ext.P4 order annulling the petitioner’s transfer.
4. In my considered opinion, the decision taken by the Director in
Ext.P4 to the extent it cancels the petitioner’s transfer to Chalakkudy is
WP(C) 24740/08 -: 4 :-
not sustainable in law and was not called for the. The Director has in
Ext.P4 held that transfers on administrative grounds can be ordered only
by the State Government. Reference is made in Ext.P4 to paragraph 29
of Ext.P5 Government order. I am of the view that the said reasoning
also is faulty and not sustainable in law. Ext.P5 only lays down the
norms to be followed by the transferring authorities including the Joint
Director of Industrial Training when transfers are effected by him.
Paragraph 29 of Ext.P5 Government order only reserves power with the
Government to deviate from the norms prescribed therein and to order
transfer in relaxation of the norms. The only restriction is that such
power can be exercised by the Government only on administrative
grounds. I therefore hold that Ext.P4 to the extent it interferes with the
petitioner’s transfer from I.T.I., Malampuzha to I.T.I.(W), Chalakudy is set
aside. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue
at I.T.I.(W), Chalakkudy pursuant to the order of transfer effected as per
Ext.P2.
5. A reading of Ext.P4 indicates that the dispute raised by the fifth
respondent has not been considered by the Director when he passed
Ext.P5. Therefore, there will be a further direction to the Director of
Industrial Training to consider the representation submitted by the fifth
respondent afresh after hearing respondents 5, 6 and 7. I further clarify
that the Director shall not while passing fresh orders, interfere with the
petitioner’s transfer and posting at the I.T.I., Chalakudy under Ext.P2.
WP(C) 24740/08 -: 5 :-
The Director shall pass revised orders in the matter within two months
from today.
The Writ Petition is allowed as above.
P.N.Ravindran,
Judge.
ess 18/10