High Court Kerala High Court

The Manager vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 10 November, 2009

Kerala High Court
The Manager vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 10 November, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 23560 of 2009(L)


1. THE MANAGER, VALANCHERY HIGHER SECONDARY
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,

3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

4. SRI.T.V.RAGHUNATH, H.S.A.(MATHS),

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.RAJENDRAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.E.HAMZA

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :10/11/2009

 O R D E R
                      T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                      W.P.(C) No.23560 of 2009-L
                   - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            Dated this the 10th day of November, 2009.

                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the corporate manager of Valanchery Higher

Secondary School and Valancherry Girls High School in Tirur Educational

District. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4 order passed by the

Government disposing of Ext.P3 revision petition.

2. By Ext.P1, the petitioner transferred the 4th respondent and one

Shri M. Sunilkumar mutually. Both are working as HSA (Maths) in the

respective schools. This was interfered with by the Director of Public

Instruction by Ext.P2, against which the petitioner filed Ext.P3 revision

petition before the Government. The same stands rejected by Ext.P4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that before passing

Ext.P4, the petitioner and other necessary parties were not heard. It is

pointed out that both schools are situated in the very same compound and

the transfer ordered by the manager has not resulted in any hardship or

prejudice to the teachers concerned. It is also stated that the 4th respondent

has not raised any objection against the transfer, before the manager also.

4. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that the transfer

wpc 23560/2009 2

is ordered in the middle of the academic year and that Rule 10 of chapter

XIV-A has also been violated.

5. Evidently, in Ext.P4 the detailed reasons in support of the

conclusion have not been stated. The parties were also not heard. In that

view of the matter, Ext.P4 is quashed. There will be a direction to the

Government to take a fresh decision in accordance with law, after hearing

the petitioner, the 4th respondent and any other affected teachers, within a

period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Till orders are passed, status quo as on today shall be maintained.

The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

kav/