IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30186 of 2008(R)
1. SHAREENA.K,L.P SCHOOL ASSISTANT,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
For Petitioner :SMT.SANDHYA RAJU
For Respondent :SRI.K.DIVAKARAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :05/12/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
-----------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.30186/2008
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of December, 2008
JUDGMENT
Ext.P7 order is under challenge. Petitioner is an LPSA
presently working at GBLP School, Mudur in Malappuram
District. Going by Ext.P1 disability certificate produced, the
petitioner has 40% disability. By Ext.P7 she has been
transferred to G.M. U.P. School, Edappal and the additional
3rd respnodent now working at G L.P School, Kanjiramukku,
Ponnani is ordered to be posted in her place.
2. According to the petitioner, at the time of general
transfer, in view of the fact that her marriage was arranged
she had submitted Ext.R3(a) application requesting for
transfer to either Kanjiramukku or Valiyamkodu or Purangu.
It is stated that, acting upon Ext.R3(a), in May, 2008 she
was transferrd to Purangu. However, due to personal
reasons, she applied for cancellation of the transfer and that
WP(c).No.30186/08 2
in July, 2008 she was transfered back to Puthur, where she
is continuing.
3. In the meanwhile, the additional 3rd respondent
had applied for transfer to the petitioner’s school and
complaining that her request was not considered, she had
approached this court by filing WP(c).No.22470/2008. That
writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment. In Ext.P6,
this court has taken note of the fact that the petitioner,
though a party to that writ petition, had not entered
appearance and that Ext.P3, the order transferring the
petitioner back to Puthur did not contain any reason why the
said order was passed. Taking note of all this the writ
petition was disposed of directing that the representation
made by the additional 3rd respondent shall be considered
by the 2nd respondent herein. It was in pursuance to the
said judgment Ext.P7 has been passed after hearing the 3rd
respondent, the petitioner in WP(c).No.22470/2008.
4. A reading of Ext.P7 shows that the second
respondent has proceeded as if he was carrying out the
directions in Ext.P6 judgment. On the other hand a reading
WP(c).No.30186/08 3
of Ext.P6 show that this court had only directed
consideration of the representation made by the additional
3rd respondent and had not dealt with the merits of the
claim of either of the parties. Since Ext.P6 does not reflect
consideration of the eligibility of the rival claims, I am
inclined to hold that Ext.P6 does not reflect a proper
consideration of the claims by both sides. Learned counsel
for the 3rd respondent also pointed out that there are
suitable vacancies against which both persons can be
considered for convenient accommodation.
5. For the aforesaid reasons I set aside Ext.P7 and
direct that the 2nd respondent shall consider the claims of
both the petitioner and the additional 3rd respondent with
notice to both of them and pass fresh orders in this matter.
This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any
rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of
the judgment.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
vi ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
WP(c).No.30186/08 4