IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2719 of 2009()
1. K.PRASANNA, W/O.KUTTAPPAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
... Respondent
2. PHILIP MATHEW, EEG TECHNICIAN, RESIDING
3. PRINCIPAL,
4. SECRETARY (HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE),
For Petitioner :SRI.A.K.ALEX
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :01/12/2009
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ.
------------------------------
W.A. No. 2719 OF 2009
------------------------------
Dated this, the 1st day of December, 2009
J U D G M E N T
~~~~~~~~~~~
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The appellant is the writ petitioner. She is a
Rehabilitation Technician working under the 1st respondent.
From Calicut Medical College now she has been transferred
by the impugned order Ext.P4 to Medical College,
Thiruvananthapuram. The said order reads as follows.
“As per the letter cited, the Principal,
Medical college, Calicut has reported that
Smt.Prasanna, Rehabilitation Technician
and Sri.Philip Mathew, EEG Technician
have been occupying quarters No.LD-1 and
LD.8 respectively. Reports in the form of
complaints/petitions are there that both
of them are in hostility that even led to
physical assaults and complaints to police
against each other. In some instances,
their family members or neighbouring
occupants are also involved either as
witness or victims or otherwise as allegedW.A. No.2719/2009
– 2 –
assailants. This has created much
disturbance to the peace and tranquility in
the neighbourhood and Medical College
campus and some complaints are reported
to have reached before courts. Meetings,
advices, compromise talks, warnings etc.
were of no use, despite some interim
break and complaints from their
neighbours also have been received. Sine
the allegations are of criminal nature and
not at all related to duty or happening in
the work place and above all the
petition/cases are reported to have been
pending either before court or under
police investigation.
In the above circumstances,
Smt.Prasanna, Rehabilitation Technician
(leather), Medical College, Calicut is
transferred and posted as such at Medical
College, Thiruvananthapuram with
immediate effect.”
2. Challenging the above quoted order, the Writ
Petition was filed. The grounds taken in the Writ Petition
were that the appellant was innocent and her rival, Mr.Philip
Mathew, was responsible for the happenings mentioned in
the above quoted order. But, the learned Single Judge
dismissed the Writ Petition giving liberty to the appellant to
W.A. No.2719/2009
– 3 –
move the Government pointing out her grievances against
Ext.P4, which is an order passed by the Director of Medical
Education. Dis-satisfied with the said judgment, this Writ
Appeal is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that she is innocent and Mr.Philip Mathew alone was
responsible for the happenings dealt with in Ext.P4. Going by
Ext.P4, we notice that the view taken by the Director of
Medical Education is that both of them are equally
responsible. If the appellant has a case that the findings in
Ext.P4 are factually incorrect, her remedy lies in moving the
Government. At this stage, the Writ Court can only proceed
on the basis that what is stated in Ext.P4 is correct.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant further
submitted that the transfer during the middle of the academic
year is causing great inconvenience. The guideline that
transfer should not ordinarily be made during the middle of
the academic year is meant for routine transfers. The same
does not apply to transfers made in exigencies of service as
W.A. No.2719/2009
– 4 –
the one made under Ext.P4. A transfer can be successfully
impugned, if only, it is shown that it is illegal or vitiated by
malafidies. Violation of a transfer norm is not a recognised
ground for interfering with a transfer by the Court.
In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
(K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)
(P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE)
ps