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
