Dismissed

Dr.a.Prasad v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Jun 2008WP(C)/16388/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order transferring him from Government College, Chavara, arguing it violated rules regarding the tenure of service and caste-based protections. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that alleged infraction of transfer guidelines does not merit writ jurisdiction and that grievances should be redressed through departmental representations.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed.

Dr.a.Prasad Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2008 / 2ND ASHADHA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 16388 of 2008(A)

¶6

--------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

DR.A.PRASAD, PRESIDENCY INDIRAJI JUNCTION, KOLLAM DISTRICT ( NOW SERVING AS LECTURER, (SELECTION GRADE) DEPARTMENT OF BOTONY, GOVERNMENT COLLEGE, CHAVARA, KOLLAM)

¶10

BY ADV. SMT.SANGEETHA LAKSHMANA

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR, COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

THE PRINCIPAL, CHAVARA GOVERNMENT COLLEGE, CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶16

SMT.RATHI AMMAL, LECTURER (SELECTION GRADE) K.K.T.M.GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, PULLOOTT, TRICHUR.

¶17

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI A.J.VARGHESE

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

K.T. SANKARAN,J.

¶20

W.P.(C) No.16388 of 2008 A -------------------------------------Dated this the 23^rd day of June, 2008.

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order of transfer dated 26.5.2008 transferring him from Government College, Chavara to K.K.T.M. Government College, Pulloott in Thrissur District. By the same Ext.P5 order of transfer, Smt.Rathi Ammal, the fourth respondent herein, was transferred from K.K.T.M. Government College, Pulloott to Government College, Chavara. Petitioner states that he joined Government service as Lecturer on 21.11.1983 and he was served as such at various places. Originally he had declared his home station as Thiruvananthapuram and later he changed his home station as Chavara. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste. The petitioner joined Government College, Chavara on 4.7.2005.

¶23

The contention of the petitioner is that he has served in Government College, Chavara only for 2 years, 10 months and 27 days and a transfer before the expiry of three years in a particular station , in violation of the Government orders relating to the transfer of employees, is illegal. The petitioner also contended that the fourth respondent had changed her home station twice and, therefore, she is not entitled to get transfer to Chavara.

¶24

WP(C) No.16388/2008

¶25

¶26

Relying on Government Orders relating to transfer of employees, the petitioner also contended that a person belonging to Scheduled Caste shall not be transferred normally for a period of ten years.

¶27

A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the second respondent wherein it is stated that the petitioner changed his home station as Government College, Chavara, Kollam, with effect from 1.5.2005 and he has completed three academic years of service in his home station with effect from 4.7.2005 to 31.5.2006. It is also pointed out in the counter affidavit that the home station of the petitioner with effect from 1.6.1989 was Thiruvananthapuram and he has rendered service in the station of his choice, viz., University College, Thiruvananthapuram and Women's College, Thiruvananthapuram, for a period of ten years. The relevant details are also furnished in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the common interests of all Lecturers are to be protected while making general transfer and that all relevant facts were taken note of at the time of passing of Ext.P5 order.

¶28

No mala fides are alleged against any of the respondents in the Writ Petition. Even assuming that there is an infraction of the guidelines for transfer to some extent, that cannot be taken as a ground to entertain a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I am not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that Ext.P5 order of transfer is either arbitrary or illegal or that it violates any of the guidelines for transfer of

¶29

WP(C) No.16388/2008

¶30

¶31

Government employees. No grounds are made out for the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition lacks merits and it is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

The petitioner is always entitled to make a representation pointing out all his grievances. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that there were instances where persons having more than ten years service in a station were not transferred or shifted to other places. All these are matters to be pointed out in the representation to be filed. If a representation is filed by the petitioner, without much delay, the authority concerned shall consider the representation and act in accordance with the rules and guidelines for transfer and shall pass appropriate orders without delay.

¶33

The Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶34

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE.

¶35

cks

Dr.a.Prasad v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.a.Prasad v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shani Udayan Vs State of Kerala and Others

Muhammed Shereef.P. Vs Dist.Educational Officer,Thamassery

Franad Musadeekh Vs State of Kerala

Manager, Devamatha Collge Vs State of Kerala

K.M.Sharafudeen Vs Dir.General of Police

Shani Udayan Vs the District Education Officer