Loading...

C.Kanchana vs Secretary on 9 June, 2009

Kerala High Court
C.Kanchana vs Secretary on 9 June, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 15796 of 2009(T)


1. C.KANCHANA,KALATHIL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SECRETARY,GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.SANJAY

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :09/06/2009

 O R D E R
                            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

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information