IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AS.No. 830 of 1997(C)
1. N.AMMALU AMMA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. T.KUNHIKRISHNAN NAIR
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.RAMADASAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :19/09/2008
O R D E R
? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
+WP(C).No. 27502 of 2008(Y)
#1. K.G.RADHAKRISHNAN, GROUP INSTRUCTOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
$1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF TRAINING,
3. L.G.VIJAYAKUMARI, GROUP INSTRUCTOR,
4. THE DIRECTOR, INDUSTRIAL TRAINING
! For Petitioner :DR.K.P.SATHEESAN
^ For Respondent : No Appearance
*Coram
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
% Dated :16/09/2008
: O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
======================================
W.P.(C)No.27502 of 2008
======================================
Dated this the 16th day of September 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner and the third respondent were promoted as
Group Instructors by Ext.P2 order dated 4.6.2008. The third
respondent is admittedly senior to the petitioner in service. On
being promoted as Group Instructor, the petitioner was posted in
Basic Training Centre, Kollam and the third respondent was
posted in the Industrial Training Institute at Kannur. Before the
petitioner was promoted as Group Instructor, he was working as
Instructor in the Industrial Training Institute, Kollam. Shortly,
after Ext.P2 order was passed and took effect, by Ext.P3 order
passed on 8.9.2008, the petitioner was transferred and posted as
Group Instructor in the Industrial Training Institute, Chengannur
and the third respondent was posted as Group Instructor in Basic
Training Centre, Kollam. The petitioner challenges his transfer to
Chengannur and the third respondent’s transfer to Kollam on two
grounds. The first ground is that as the President of the Kerala
Industrial Training Department Technical Staff Organization, he is
entitled to continue at Kollam in terms of Ext.P4 government
W.P.(C)27502/2008 2
order. The second contention is that the third respondent is an
Instructor in the trade of Stenography (Hindi) and is not entitled
to be posted as Group Instructor in Basic Training Centre, where
Polymer Chemistry is taught as one of the subjects. The petitioner
submits that he is qualified to handle Polymer Chemistry and the
third respondent is not. Ext.P3 order of transfer was passed by
the Joint Director of Training, Industrial Training Department.
Aggrieved by Ext.P3, the petitioner has filed Ext.P3 representation
before the fourth respondent seeking reconsideration of his
transfer under Ext.P3.
2. I have heard Sri.Dr.K.P.Satheesan, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.Nandakumar, the learned
Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. As the
petitioner has chosen to approach the fourth respondent
complaining about the transfer effected as per Ext.P3, it would
not be proper for this Court to go into merits of the contentions
raised by the petitioner at this stage. The fourth respondent
being an officer superior to the officer who issued Ext.P3 has the
competence to vary the transfer order evidenced by Ext.P3, if
grounds exist therefor. In these circumstances, I dispose of the
writ petition with a direction to the fourth respondent to consider
Ext.P5 and pass orders thereon, after affording the petitioner and
W.P.(C)27502/2008 3
the third respondent an opportunity of being heard. This shall
be done within one month from the date on which the petitioner
produces a certified copy of this judgment before the fourth
respondent.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
css/