IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2283 of 2009()
1. SUHARA K.K, JUNIOR LANGUAGE TEACHER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THARA P.JUNIOR LANGUAGE TEACHER,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REP,.BY ITS SECRETARY
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KASARAGOD
4. EMPLOYMENT OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.S.R.BANNURMATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :22/10/2009
O R D E R
S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J.
------------------------------------------------------
W.A.No.2283 of 2009
-------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2009
JUDGMENT
S.R.Bannurmath, C.J.
A person who is not a party to W.P.(C) No.6248 of
2009 has challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge
dated 19th August, 2009 allowing the writ petition filed by the
first respondent herein.
2. Considering the government order dated
14.7.2009 and the undisputed fact that the writ petitioner/first
respondent herein is a physically handicapped person, the
learned Single Judge directed the second respondent Deputy
Director of Education to regularise her service under the
physically handicapped quota and since a vacancy at G.U.P.S.,
Kasaragod is available, directed the authority to fill up the post
by reappointing the writ petitioner against that vacancy.
W.A.No.2283 of 2009
– 2 –
3. It is that order which is assailed by the
appellant/third party in the present appeal on the ground that in
the online transfer preference sought by the appellant, she had
given one of her options to this place which is now directed to
be allotted to the writ petitioner. It is submitted that the failure
of the second respondent to bring it to the notice of the Court
that the appellant had sought for such a transfer to the said place
has resulted in depriving the appellant to get transfer to that
place.
4. At the outset, it is to be noted that the appellant
has no absolute right to ask a place for transfer of her choice.
Whenever there are vacancies, it is possible that she may or may
not be transferred or posted. In fact, the application for transfer
filed by the appellant itself shows that she had given option for
four places and one of them happens to be the place wherein the
writ petitioner has now been posted.
W.A.No.2283 of 2009
– 3 –
5. In our view, the appellant has no right to dictate
terms to the employer as to her transfer to a particular place
because of her convenience and as such she has no locus standi
to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge. In view
of this conclusion, we find no merit in the writ appeal and
accordingly the same is dismissed.
S.R.Bannurmath,
Chief Justice
A.K. Basheer,
Judge
vns