High Court Kerala High Court

Shibu vs The State Of Kerala Represented To on 10 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
Shibu vs The State Of Kerala Represented To on 10 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 17430 of 2008(Y)


1. SHIBU ,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. NISANTH MOHAN.M.
3. GIREESAN.A.
4. VIJAY KUMAR.C.R
5. BIJU S.S.
6. VENTITAMOORTHY.K.
7. PRIYAU.,
8. SURESHKRISHNAN.K.L.
9. SUBASH KRISHNAN.K.
10. RAJKUMAR K.K.

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED TO
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR  HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION

3. VENUGOPALAN M.G.

                For Petitioner  :DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

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

 Dated :10/07/2008

 O R D E R
                              K.T.SANKARAN, J.
                      --------------------------------------------
                      W.P.(C) NO. 17430 OF 2008
                      --------------------------------------------
                      Dated this the 10th July, 2008

                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioners are Higher Secondary School Teachers working in

various schools in Kottayam, Idukki, Alappuzha, Kollam and

Pathanamthitta Districts. The grievance voiced by the petitioners is that

though a policy was evolved by the Government for transfer of Higher

Secondary School Teachers as evidenced by Ext.P4, the same has not

been implemented during this academic year and that the teachers are

compelled to make separate applications for transfer in spite of the fact

that they had submitted applications earlier on the basis of Ext.P4

guidelines.

2. It is stated that the second respondent, the head of the

department, used to call applications prior to each general transfer and

that the petitioners used to submit applications in the prescribed form right

from 2005 onwards, seeking transfer to their native District, namely,

Thiruvananthapuram District. It is pointed out that as per clauses 4, 5, 18

and 19 of Ext.P4 guidelines, the petitioners are eligible for transfer to

Thiruvananthapuram District as they have completed more than three

years’ service in outstation. It is pointed out that they came across a news

item wherein it is stated that in spite of the applications already submitted,

W.P.(C) NO.17430 OF 2008 Y

:: 2 ::

persons like the petitioners have to make another application for transfer.

It is also stated that in the new proforma the petitioners have submitted

fresh applications for transfer.

3. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following:

“i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or
order directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to
implement transfer of Higher Secondary School
Teachers as per guidelines Ext.P4(a).

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or
order directing the 2nd respondent to give transfer to
Public Service Commission appointed Higher
Secondary School Teachers (Geography) to the
native district.

iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or
order directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P8
after hearing the petitioners.”

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first

respondent wherein it is stated thus:

“6. It is submitted that the petitioners argument that in
the absence of Special guidelines prescribed for a
department the general guidelines for transfer of employees
issued by Government then and there is to be followed is
correct. But since these General guidelines cannot be
followed in toto in this department, the Director has
convened a meeting of the representatives of all the
recognized teachers organizations and framed transfer
norms and the same have been ratified by Government as
per Ext.P4 letter. Later as per letter
No.27961/U1/08/Gl.Edn., dated 15.5.2008 Government
have directed the Director to do the transfer as done in the

W.P.(C) NO.17430 OF 2008 Y

:: 3 ::

previous year (as per seniority(, as Government have to
review the Ext.P4 guidelines on the basis of complaints
received from Teacher’s Organization. It is in the light of the
above direction that the Director invited fresh application
from Teachers for transfer.

7. It is submitted that the Director calls application for
general transfer during the February every year. All the
teachers who have entitlement for transfer are given transfer
depending upon their eligibility and availability of vacancies.
The petitioners were not given transfer earlier as they have
no entitlement for transfer since they are far junior in Higher
Secondary Education Service.

8. It is also submitted that out of total 90
H.S.S.Teachers in Georgraphy posted on 10.1.2005, 45
were from Thiruvananthapuram District and 35 were from
Palakkad district and the teachers in the said subject are
spread all over the State. Hence all H.S.S.Teachers in
Geography cannot be accommodated in their Home station
at a time. It is further submitted that the Exhibit P4 is only a
Government letter and not at all a Government Order or
Circular regulating the norms for transfer.”

It is also stated in the counter affidavit that a review of Ext.P4 norms is

required after discussions with the teachers’ organizations. Therefore,

the Government directed that transfers shall be made as per the norms

which were being followed in the previous years. It is stated in the

counter that the transfer of teachers will be done strictly as per the norms

followed in 2007-08, which is marked as Ext.R1(a) in the counter affidavit.

It is stated that a provisional transfer order will be published on

departmental web site and complaints could be entertained from

teachers. Transparency would be ensured, it is stated in the counter.

W.P.(C) NO.17430 OF 2008 Y

:: 4 ::

5. In view of the submission that Ext.P4 guidelines have not been

implemented and the Government having stated that the matter is being

looked into afresh and the norms as available in 2007-08 would be

adhered to strictly, the only relief that can be granted to the petitioners is

to permit them to approach the second respondent (Director of Higher

Secondary Education), pointing out their individual grievances. The

petitioners would be free to make detailed representations to the second

respondent requesting for transfer in the light of the relevant criteria which

are being followed. On receipt of such representations, the second

respondent shall consider the grievance voiced by the petitioners and take

appropriate decision in the matter. The petitioners would be entitled to

produce such other materials and documents as are relevant before the

second respondent. If and when such representations are received by the

second respondent, they shall be disposed of without delay and, at any

rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such

representations. It is made clear that I have not considered the merits of

the claim made by the petitioners.

6. There is merit in the submission of the petitioners that proper

guidelines should be framed for transfers of Higher Secondary School

Teachers so that there will be uniform standard applicable to all. Though

Ext.P4 guidelines have been framed, the same has not been implemented

W.P.(C) NO.17430 OF 2008 Y

:: 5 ::

on the request made by a service organization. The Government shall

finalize the guidelines expeditiously so that the guidelines can be applied

for the general transfer from the next academic year onwards.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge

ahz/