High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
REMADEVI. P.S., W/O.PRATHAPAN K.S. v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION - WP(C) No. 15219 of 2007(J)  RD-KL 9176 (31 May 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWP(C) No. 15219 of 2007(J)
1. REMADEVI. P.S., W/O.PRATHAPAN K.S.,
1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
3. K.S. GEETHA, W/O.HUSBAND'S NAME & AGE
For Petitioner :SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER, J.W.P.(C)No.15219 OF 2007
Dated this the 31st day of May, 2007
Petitioner who is stated to be working as Headmistress in a Government Lower Primary School at Pavukkara in Mannar is aggrieved by the order of transfer issued in favour of respondent no.3 as Headmistress in Government Upper Primary School at Uzhuva.
2. According to the petitioner, the request made by her for a transfer to the said school at Uzhuva was totally ignored and overlooked by the department. She contends that her request ought to have been favourably, considered particularly for the reason that she had married a person belonging to another community and therefore she was entitled to get the benefit of the relevant clause relating to inter caste marriage couples.
3. In the counter affidavit it is pointed out by the departmental officer that petitioner had not referred to the above claim while making her request for transfer. If only she W.P.(C)No.15219 OF 2007 had made such a request, it might have been appropriately considered. On the contrary, respondent No.3 had produced relevant documents claiming the benefit available to the dependants of freedom fighters.
4. Anyhow, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner has to be relegated to the departmental authority.
5. Learned counsel submits that petitioner will be satisfied, if an appropriate direction is issued to respondent no.1 to take a decision on Exts.P4 and P5 with reference to the relevant orders of the Government. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 while supporting the order passed in her favour, submits that she has not been posted to a station of her choice. She would be happier if she is accommodated in one of the stations preferred by her. Anyhow, at the moment she is happy with what she has got.
6. In the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.1 to consider and pass orders on Exts.P4 and P5 strictly on their W.P.(C)No.15219 OF 2007 merit and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to mention that petitioner shall be afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard before any decision is taken in the matter. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a certified copy of the judgment before respondent no.1 for compliance.
7. If respondent no.1 finds that the request made by the petitioner is to be granted and she is to be accommodated at Uzhuva then necessarily it shall also be considered whether respondent no.3 can be accommodated in one of the three stations of her choice. Otherwise respondent no.3 need not be disturbed from Uzhuva and petitioner can be accommodated in any other station of her choice. Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.