Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SOMARAJAN, AGED 54, S/O.LATE versus DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SOMARAJAN, AGED 54, S/O.LATE v. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY - WP(C) No. 25189 of 2006(W) [2007] RD-KL 2294 (31 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 25189 of 2006(W)

1. SOMARAJAN, AGED 54, S/O.LATE
... Petitioner

Vs

1. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY
... Respondent

2. P.K.SUDHAKARAN, PRINCIPAL,

3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY

4. T.G.KURIAN, HSST,

For Petitioner :SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW

For Respondent :SRI.D.KISHORE

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

Dated :31/01/2007

O R D E R

K.M.JOSEPH, J.

W.P.(C).No.25189 OF 2006

Dated this the 31st day of January, 2007



JUDGMENT

Case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: Petitioner is working as the Principal of Government Girls HSS, Adoor from 7-7-2005 and he is due to retire on 31-03-2008. Petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order of transfer. According to him, the order is a product of malafides. It is stated that he has worked in Government H.S.S. , Budhanoor and Govt. H.S.S. Angadickal south and he was promoted as Principal on 18-07-2005. It is his case that the petitioner refused to take membership in KGOA of which 4th respondent is also a leader. The leaders became angry and tried to attack him. Petitioner and other teachers of the school complained to the C.I. of Police, Adoor and to the first respondent. It is stated that second respondent is junior to the petitioner and he has more than 5 more years in service. Petitioner is being transferred to accommodate the second respondent, it is stated. Govt. H.S.S., Kisuman is more than 75 kilometres away WPC No.25189/06 2 from petitioner's place of residence and more than 90 km. away from the present school. Govt. H.S.S., Kisuman is situated in thick forest. There are no buses to reach the school. One has to walk nearly 15 km through the forest to reach the school. Petitioner is suffering from high B.P. and diabetes and he requires medical attention regularly. It is stated that when he went to the office of the first respondent on 23-09-2006, he was informed that he has been transferred. He was not given a copy of the order.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order was issued on 23-09-2006 and 24-09-2006 was a Sunday and second respondent has joined duty on 25-09-2006. The manner in which it is implemented also establishes the case of malafides and there is undue haste, he submits.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the first and second respondent. Second respondent has also filed affidavit on 30-01-2007. Therein it is stated that he has submitted Ext.R2(c) application on 16-09-2006 and his mother is undergoing treatment for curing Uterus Cancer at Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. It is also WPC No.25189/06 3 stated that he has a brother who is working in S.N.College, Kollam and his wife is also working in the same college and there is nobody to look after his mother and she is now residing with the petitioner. Learned counsel for the second respondent points out that though second respondent has joined on 25-09-2006 at Adoor, in the light of the order passed by this court, he joined back.

4. In the circumstances of this case, I feel that petitioner should be permitted to approach the Government with representation against Ext.P4 order and the interim order passed by this court should continue till a decision is taken thereon. But I also feel that the contentions of the petitioner regarding malafides are to be left open.

5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that if the petitioner files a representation against Ext.P4 before the third respondent within a period of three weeks from today, a decision will be taken on the same by the third respondent in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation after hearing the petitioner and the second respondent. Till such time a decision is taken, interim order passed by this court WPC No.25189/06 4 shall continue. I leave open the contentions of the petitioner including malafides. It is open to the petitioner and the second respondent to point out the vacancies whereby the Government can take a decision to accommodate the petitioner and the second respondent in an equitable manner. The decision taken by the third respondent shall not be implemented for a period of three days from the date of the order. Writ petition is disposed of as above. K.M.JOSEPH

JUDGE

sv.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.