IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16047 of 2008(I)
1. SMT.JAYASREE M.G., AGED 37 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE CENTRAL BOARDL OF SECONDARY
3. THE SECRETARY & CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER
4. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BOARD OF
5. MATHA AMRUTHANANDAMAYI MATH,
6. M/S.AMRITA VIDYALAYAM, KUNNUMPURAM
7. GENERAL MANAGER AND CO-ORDINATOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
For Respondent :SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :08/07/2008
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
............................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 16047, 16048 & 16509 OF 2008
............................................................................
Dated this the 8th July, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners in these Writ Petitions are teachers working in Amrita
Vidhyalayam, North Kunnumpuram, Edappally. As per Ext. P4 transfer order dated
10.04.2008 issued by ‘Amrita Vidyalayam’, the petitioners in these Writ Petitions have
been transferred to other institutions run by the fifth respondent-Matha
Amruthanandamayi Math. The contention of the petitioners is that there is no
corporate educational agency and that each school is affiliated separately. It is also
contended that a transfer order like Ext. P4 cannot be issued transferring the
petitioners to different schools. The petitioners have also raised various grievances in
Ext. P2 and P6 representations submitted by them before the Secretary and Chief
Vigilance Officer, C.B.S.E., New Delhi.
2. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petitions are the following:
“(i) Declare that Exts. P4 (transfer order) and P7 (rejection
order) (not received by the petitioner) issued by 5th and 6th
respondents through the hands of the newly formulated 7th
respondent against the petitioner is illegal, unjust and
unsustainable and vitiated by bias and malafides and is the
result of victimisation and the same is contrary to Ext.P1 byelaw.
(ii) Declare that the running of the school, the 6th respondent by
the 5th respondent after obtaining affiliation from the 2nd
respondent is contrary to Ext. P1 byelaws and hence illegal and
further declare that the 5th respondent is not entitled to enjoy the
W.P.(C) No. 16047, 16048 & 16509 OF 2008
2
privilage of affiliation from the 2nd respondent.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus,
or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent 2, 3 and 4
to immediately take effective and stern action against the 5th
and 6th respondent for having violated the terms of Ext. P1 and
communicate such decisions to the petitioner.
(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
or any other appropriate writ directing respondents 2,3 and 4 to
take up Exts.P2 and P6 and declare that Exts. P4 and P7 orders
issued by the 5th and 6th respondents is illegal and is the result
of victimisation for having taken up the cause of exploitation.
(v) Pass such other and further reliefs, as may be prayed for
hereafter and which are deemed fit and proper on the facts and
circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. ”
3. On notice, respondents have entered appearance and counter affidavits have
been filed. The main contention put forward by the respondents is that the Writ
Petitions are not maintainable for the reliefs claimed in the Writ Petitions. The
respondents rely on the decision reported in Sophiamma v. Council for Indian
School Certificate Examination (2008 (2) KLT 589) in support of their contention.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are pressing
for only relief No.(iv) and to that limited extent, the Writ Petitions are maintainable.
Respondents have no dispute as regards the maintainability of a Writ Petition for the
relief akin to relief No.(iv) prayed for in the Writ Petitions.
6. Adv. Shri Devan Ramachandran, learned Standing Counsel appearing for
the C.B.S.E. contended that in respect of relief No.(iv), the petitioners cannot expect the
C.B.S.E. to conduct inspection, take evidence and pass orders as is being done in the
case of institutions working under the Kerala Educational Rules. In the peculiar set up
of things under the C.B.S.E. , the working of educational institutions could not be
W.P.(C) No. 16047, 16048 & 16509 OF 2008
3
smoothly undertaken if every now and then teachers make representations and if the
C.B.S.E. is expected to dispose of those representations, taking individual case and by
deciding individual dispute., it is submitted. At the same time, Shri Devan
Ramachandran submitted that periodical inspections can be conducted by a team of
inspectors in each school and that the group of teachers in each school can put forward
their grievances before the inspection team. He further submits that in so far as Exts.
P2 and P6 representations are concerned, such a course can be adopted and the
grievance of the petitioners could be taken up for consideration and necessary steps
taken, if they are found genuine. This submission is reasonable in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that leaving open the remedy of
the petitioners for redressal of their grievances and to agitate the matter before the
appropriate forum, the Writ Petitions can be disposed of confining their relief to relief
No.(iv). Taking note of the submission made by Shri Devan Ramachandran, I am
inclined to dispose of the Writ Petitions with a direction to the 4th respondent- the
Regional Director, C.B.S.E. to look into the grievances voiced in Exts. P2 and P6
representations and to consider the same during the periodical inspection to be made as
usual by the C.B.S.E. It is made clear that at that time, the petitioners will be heard by
the 4th respondent.
8. Adv. Shri K. Srikumar and Shri P.K. Suresh Kumar appearing for the
contesting respondents submitted that the petitioners have entered into an agreement
with the institution wherein they have agreed that they are liable to be transferred to
other institutions run by Matha Amruthanandamayi Math and therefore they are not
entitled to challenge the order of transfer either in a Writ Petition or before a civil court
W.P.(C) No. 16047, 16048 & 16509 OF 2008
4
or to make grievances before C.B.S.E. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the petitioners have not executed any such agreement and contended that the
form of agreement relied on by the respondents is contrary to the terms of agreement
appended to Ext. P1 affiliation byelaws. These are all matters to be considered by the
C.B.S.E. at the time when the inspection is being made as mentioned above.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri C. Varghese Kuriakose is right in his
submission that since the Writ Petitions are not being pressed or entertained in so far
as reliefs other than the relief No.(iv) are concerned, the rights of the petitioners to
approach the appropriate forum, if any, shall be protected. Leaving open the right
of the petitioners to move the appropriate forum, if any, under law, the Writ Petitions
are dismissed in so far as reliefs other than relief No.(iv) are concerned and relief No.(iv)
is disposed of in the manner indicated above.
K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
lk