High Court Kerala High Court

Rugmini M vs The Director Of Public … on 22 December, 2010

Kerala High Court
Rugmini M vs The Director Of Public … on 22 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 38257 of 2010(F)


1. RUGMINI M, W/O NARAYANAN, H.M.PRINCIPAL
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.SASINDRAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :22/12/2010

 O R D E R
                K.T.SANKARAN, J.
          ------------------------------
             W.P.(C).No.38257 OF 2010
          ------------------------------
                      nd
     Dated this the 22  day of December, 2010




                     JUDGMENT

The petitioner, while working at G.H.S.S,

Vellur, Kannur, was promoted as Headmistress and

posted as such at G.F.V.H.S.S, Kaipamangalam,

Thrissur. It is stated that the petitioner is a

resident of Kannur District and that she has got a

preferential claim for transfer on the ground that

she has married a person belonging to another

caste. The petitioner applied for transferring her

to any of the schools either in Kannur or Kasaragod

Districts (Ext.P4 and P4(a)). Thereafter, Ext.P5

order dated 3.8.2010 was passed by the Director of

Public Instruction by which several Headmasters

were transferred to various stations. Serial No.7

in Ext.P5, namely, P.K.Sethumadhavan Nambiar, was

granted transfer to GVHSS Mogral. It is alleged

that Sethumadhavan Nambiar is junior to the

petitioner and therefore, the petitioner should

W.P.(C).No.38257 OF 2010 2

have been considered at the time of issuing Ext.P5

transfer order. The petitioner submitted Ext.P6

representation dated 4.12.2010 to the Director of

Public Instruction pointing out her grievance and

also praying for transferring her to any of the

schools mentioned in Ext.P6, where vacancy exists.

Ext.P6 is pending disposal.

2. Though several reliefs are claimed in the

Writ Petition, learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that for the time being, the petitioner

would be satisfied, if Ext.P6 is directed to be

disposed of.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Government Pleader.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the

Writ Petition is disposed of as follows:

a) The Director of Public Instruction

shall consider and dispose of Ext.P6

W.P.(C).No.38257 OF 2010 3

representation dated 4.12.2010

submitted by the petitioner as

expeditiously as possible, and at any

rate, within a period of one month

from the date of receipt of a copy of

the judgment, after affording an

opportunity of being heard to any

affected party.




    b)    The petitioner waives her right to be

          heard  by    the Director  of   Public

Instruction before disposal of Ext.P6

representation.

c) The petitioner shall produce a copy of

the Writ Petition and certified copy

of the judgment before the Director of

Public Instruction.

K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE.

cms