JUDGMENT
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.
1. The petitioner who is a High School Assistant of S.N.V. High School, Anad, Nedumangad has filed this Original Petition aggrieved by the orders of the Manager of her school and the Director of Public Instruction in her claim for transfer to SNDP. Higher Secondary School, Udayamperoor, Tripunithura. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the case are the following:
2. The petitioner was appointed as an Upper Primary School Assistant on 2.1.1991 in the Anad School. She was promoted as High School Assistant on 3.6.1996. The said appointment has been approved on 25.2.2000 with effect from 3.6.1996 as evident from Ext P2. The petitioner was transferred to S.N.D.P. Higher Secondary School, Udayamperoor by the Manager by order dated 29.8.1998 with effect from 15.7.1998. One Mr. M.K. Poulose, HSA of S.N.V. High School, Anad challenged the petitioner’s transfer before the Director of Public Instruction and by Ext. P3 order dated 17.9.1999, the Director of Public Instruction set aside the petitioner’s transfer and directed the Manager to transfer Mr. M.K. Poulose to the Udayamperoor School. The petitioner filed OP No. 25512/99 challenging Ext. P3. But the same was dismissed by Ext. P4 judgment of this Court dated 7.6.2000. She preferred Writ Appeal No. 1237/2000 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by Ext. P5 judgment dated 4.8.2000. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows:
“It is contended by the appellant that now her appointment is approved w.e.f. 3.6.1996. She will have better claim for being posted at Udayamperoor in preference to Smt. Bindu B. Rajan who is junior to her, but accommodated at Udayamperoor. So long as the above teacher is not a party in the Original Petitions and Writ Appeals, this Court cannot consider the inter se claim between the appellant and alleged junior teacher. We therefore direct the 1st respondent-Director of Public Instruction to consider the claim of the appellant in the light of Annexure B after giving proper opportunity to all affected parties.”
3. In the light of the said directions, the Director of Public Instruction passed Ext. P7 order dated 24.10.2000. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows:
“I have considered all the conditions (sic contentions) of the petitioner and the respondents. As per Judgment in OP No. 22077/2000C dated 25.8.2000 Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has ordered that, as per Rule 10 of Chapter XIVA KER, seniority has to be considered only in respect of transfer of Headmasters. There is no specific provision in Rule 10 which says that, effecting transfers of teachers also should be strictly in accordance with seniority. This position has been upheld in Writ Appeal No. 1995/2000 also.
In view of the above legal position, it is not proper to order the transfer of Smt. Bindhu B. Rajan merely on account of Smt. B.S. Jayasree getting approval on 25.2.2000. Hence the Manager is directed to transfer Smt. B.S. Jayasree to SNDPHSS, Udayamperoor in the next arising vacancy. The representation of Smt. B.S. Jayasree dated 18.8.2000 is disposed of accordingly”.
4. While this order was in force, within a couple of days, the Manager issued Ext. P8 order transferring the fifth respondent to SNDP HSS, Udayamperoor ignoring the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner challenges Exts. P7 and P8.
5. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that the direction in Ext. P7 to the Manager to transfer the petitioner in the next arising vacancy is in violation of the judgments of this Court. Therefore, Ext. P8 is valid, it is submitted. The fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit supporting Ext. P7. She is not concerned with the validity of Ext. P8. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the first respondent supporting Ext. P7.
6. I heard both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner confined his attack against Ext. P8. For that, he relied on the direction issued by the Director of Public Instruction in Ext. P7. The DPI directed to accommodate the petitioner in the next arising vacancy. But, without accommodating her, the fifth respondent who was promoted as HSA only on 5.6.2000 has been posted to Udayamperoor. Learned counsel submitted that since Ext. P8 is issued in violation of Ext. P7, it is liable to be quashed. The learned counsel for the Manager submitted that they can disregard the direction of the DPI regarding the posting of the petitioner, as the said direction is contrary to the judgments of this Court.
7. According to some of the decisions of this Court, the principle of seniority will apply only to the transfer of Headmasters. But, as per Rule 10 read with the Government Order governing transfer of teachers in Government Schools, the principle of seniority will apply to the transfer of teachers as well. In view of conflicting decisions, a Division Bench of this Court as per order dated 21.12.2001 in W.A. No. 2660/2001 referred the matter for decision by the Full Bench. But the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court need not go into that question or refer the case to the Full Bench as he is confining his attack to Ext. P8, and that too, on the ground of violation of Ext. P7.
8. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent submitted that Ext. P7 order is void ab initio for the reason that the same has been issued without hearing her. He also relied on the direction in Ext. P5 judgment to the DPI to consider the claim of the appellant therein in the light of Annexure B after giving proper opportunity to all affected parties. Learned counsel submits that the fifth respondent is an affected party and since the matter was decided without hearing her, the decision is contrary to the judgment of the Division Bench, Ext. P5. It is, also, void ab initio for the violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also claimed by the fifth respondent that Ext. P7 having been issued behind her back, is not binding on her. It is also argued on behalf of the fifth respondent that since the Director of Public Instruction has found that he has no jurisdiction, the direction to post the petitioner is issued without jurisdiction and it can be ignored.
9. Rule 81A of Chapter XIVA KER says:
“Managers are lower or subordinate authorities for the purpose of these Rules in relation to Educational Officers, Deputy Director (Education), the Director, the Government or the authority empowered by the Government.”
So, when the Director of Public Instruction who is constituted as an appellate authority under Rule 10 of Chapter XIVA KER issues a direction to the original authority, the Manager, he is bound to obey the same. He cannot ignore the same saying that it is in conflict with some decisions of this Court In case it is in conflict with any decision of this Court, the Manager should move the higher authority or this Court and get the direction of the DPI set aside. He cannot simply ignore the direction of the Director. If the Managers arrogate to themselves the authority to decide whether a decision is right or wrong and then try to ignore a decision which, according to them, is wrong, it will create chaos. The orders of statutory authorities then can never be enforced. Such an attitude cannot be tolerated or condoned in the light of the principles governing rule of law. It is said, “even the King is subject to law and God”. It is also said “Be you ever so high, the law will be above you”. So, the stand of the Manger is plainly untenable. He is bound to obey the directions in Ext. P7.
10. Further, a Full Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 2660/2001 has overruled the decisions of this Court which say that principle of seniority is not applicable to the transfer of teachers and held that the principles governing transfer of teachers in Government schools including seniority will apply to the transfer of aided school teachers. The said decision was rendered on 19.3.2002 after this Original Petition was heard and reserved for judgment on 18.3.2002. In view of this decision of the Full Bench, the competence of the Director of Public Instruction to issue the direction contained in Ext. P7 can never be disputed. Therefore, Ext. P7 is valid and every one is bound by the same.
11. The contention of the fifth respondent that since she was not heard she is not bound by Ext. P7, cannot be accepted. The fifth respondent came to the picture only after the issuance of Ext. P7 on 24.10.2000. When this Court by Ext. P5 directed to hear all affected parties, it did not mean or include all those persons who may apply for transfer in future to Udayamperoor. At the relevant time, the dispute was only between the Manager, petitioner, Shri. M.K. Poulose & Smt. Bindu B. Rajan, the 4th respondent herein. They were all heard. The Director of Public Instruction cannot be found fault with for not hearing all the HSAs under the Manager who are likely to apply for a transfer to Udayamperoor. Therefore, the contention raised by the fifth respondent collaterally by way of defence against the enforcement of Ext P7 is unsustainable in law.
12. Therefore, the Original Petition is allowed in part. Ext P8 is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to be posted to the vacancy in which the fifth respondent was posted. The Manager is bound by the direction in Ext P7 and he shall pass orders posting the petitioner to Udayamperoor Higher Secondary School within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.