Sindhu A.P vs The Director Industrial Training on 16 October, 2008

Kerala High Court
Sindhu A.P vs The Director Industrial Training on 16 October, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 24740 of 2008(T)


1. SINDHU A.P.
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DIRECTOR INDUSTRIAL TRAINING
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA

3. THE PRINCIPAL, I.T.I.MALAMPUZHA

4. THE PRINCIPAL, I.T.I.(W)

5. SMT. M.B.BABY

6. SMT. K.V.JALAJA KUMARI

7. SMT. SHANTY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.AJITH NARAYANAN

                For Respondent  :DR.K.P.SATHEESAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :16/10/2008

 O R D E R
                               P.N.Ravindran, J.
                        =====================
                          W.P(C).No.24740 of 2008
                        =====================

                 Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008.

                                JUDGMENT

The petitioner is presently working as Junior Instructor in the

Industrial Training Department. She entered service as Junior Instructor

on 27.4.1999. From the date of entry in service till 27.5.2008, she was

stationed at the Industrial Training Institute at Malampuzha in Palakkad

District. During the time of general transfer for the year 2008, the

petitioner applied for a transfer to the I.T.I. (Women), Chalakudy. The

petitioner belongs to Mambra, which is close to Chalakudy. Her request

was considered by the Joint Director of Industrial Training and by Ext.P2

order passed on 23.5.2008, the Joint Director ordered transfer of the

petitioner from the I.T.I., Malampuzha to I.T.I. (W), Chalakudy. Pursuant

to the order transferring the petitioner to Chalakudy, the fifth

respondent was transferred out to I.T.I., Malampuzha. The fifth

respondent admittedly has completed five years of service at the I.T.I.,

Chalakudy. Pursuant to Ext.P2 order of transfer, the Principal, I.T.I.,

Malampuzha relieved the petitioner on 27.5.2008 and she joined duty at

the I.T.I. (W), Chalakudy on 29.5.2008.

WP(C) 24740/08 -: 2 :-

2. Aggrieved by her transfer to I.T.I., Malampuzha, the fifth

respondent filed W.P.(C) No.19067 of 2008 in this Court with

respondents 6 and 7 herein on the party array. The fifth respondent’s

grievance was that respondents 6 and 7 have completed a longer term at

Chalakudy and they ought to have been transferred out instead of

transferring her to Malampuzha. The petitioner herein was admittedly

not a party to W.P.(C) No.19067 of 2008. The fifth respondent did not

also challenge the petitioner’s transfer from the I.T.I., Malampuzha to

I.T.I. (W), Chalakudy. By Ext.R5(e) judgment delivered on 25.6.2008, this

Court disposed of W.P.(C)No.19067 of 2008 with a direction to the

Director of Industrial Training to consider the representation submitted

by the fifth respondent against her transfer to Malampuzha and take a

decision thereon after hearing respondents 6 and 7 as well. As directed

by this Court in Ext.R5(e) judgment, the Director of Industrial Training

heard respondents 5, 6 and 7 and passed Ext.P4 order cancelling the

transfer of the petitioner and the fifth respondent ordered as per Ext.P2.

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order to the extent

it cancels her transfer from Malampuzha to Chalakudy ordered as per

Ext.P2.

3. I have heard Sri.V.Ajith Narayanan, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner, Sri. P.Nandakumar, the learned Government

Pleader appearing for the official respondents, Sri.C.D.Dileep, the learned

counsel appearing for the fifth respondent, Sri.M.K.Dileep Kumar, the

WP(C) 24740/08 -: 3 :-

learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent and

Dr.K.P.Satheesan, the learned counsel appearing for the seventh

respondent. It is evident from the pleadings in W.P.(C)No.19067 of 2008

and the directions issued by this Court in Ext.R5(e) judgment that the

fifth respondent did not at any point of time have a grievance about the

petitioner’s transfer from I.T.I., Malampuzha to I.T.I.(W), Chalakudy. As

noticed above, right from the date of entry in service in the year 1999 till

she was transferred to Chalakudy, the petitioner was working at

Malampuzha. The petitioner’s entitlement for transfer from Malampuzha

was never questioned by the fifth respondent in W.P.(C) No.19067 of

2008. The only dispute raised by the fifth respondent was that

respondents 6 and 7 herein, who were joined as respondents 3 and 4

respectively in W.P.(C)No.19067 of 2008 had served for a longer term at

Chalakudy and therefore, one among them ought to have been

transferred out instead of transferring out her from Chalakudy. In short,

the directions issued by this Court in Ext.R5(e) judgment will have to be

understood as one directing the Director of Industrial Training to

adjudicate upon the said claim of the fifth respondent. Evidently on the

wrong understanding of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.R5(e)

judgment and without hearing the petitioner, the Director of Industrial

Training passed Ext.P4 order annulling the petitioner’s transfer.

4. In my considered opinion, the decision taken by the Director in

Ext.P4 to the extent it cancels the petitioner’s transfer to Chalakkudy is

WP(C) 24740/08 -: 4 :-

not sustainable in law and was not called for the. The Director has in

Ext.P4 held that transfers on administrative grounds can be ordered only

by the State Government. Reference is made in Ext.P4 to paragraph 29

of Ext.P5 Government order. I am of the view that the said reasoning

also is faulty and not sustainable in law. Ext.P5 only lays down the

norms to be followed by the transferring authorities including the Joint

Director of Industrial Training when transfers are effected by him.

Paragraph 29 of Ext.P5 Government order only reserves power with the

Government to deviate from the norms prescribed therein and to order

transfer in relaxation of the norms. The only restriction is that such

power can be exercised by the Government only on administrative

grounds. I therefore hold that Ext.P4 to the extent it interferes with the

petitioner’s transfer from I.T.I., Malampuzha to I.T.I.(W), Chalakudy is set

aside. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue

at I.T.I.(W), Chalakkudy pursuant to the order of transfer effected as per

Ext.P2.

5. A reading of Ext.P4 indicates that the dispute raised by the fifth

respondent has not been considered by the Director when he passed

Ext.P5. Therefore, there will be a further direction to the Director of

Industrial Training to consider the representation submitted by the fifth

respondent afresh after hearing respondents 5, 6 and 7. I further clarify

that the Director shall not while passing fresh orders, interfere with the

petitioner’s transfer and posting at the I.T.I., Chalakudy under Ext.P2.

WP(C) 24740/08 -: 5 :-

The Director shall pass revised orders in the matter within two months

from today.

The Writ Petition is allowed as above.

P.N.Ravindran,
Judge.

ess 18/10

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *