Allowed

Sujitha.S v. Director of Higher Secondary Education

Kerala HC16 Jun 2010WP(C)/15579/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition filed by a teacher seeking permission to remain in government service at Edappally. The Court set aside part of a transfer order (Ext.P3) but clarified that the stay extension would not violate future transfer norms.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed subject to the clarification that the judgment does not affect future transfers of the petitioner after the normal period of stay expires.

Sujitha.S Vs Director of Higher Secondary Education — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2010 / 26TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 15579 of 2010(V)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

SUJITHA.S., HSST, CHEMISTRY, G.H.S.S. EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES

¶11

SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

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

¶14

1. THE DIRECTOR OF THE HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

2. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT H.S.S., EDAPPALLY.

¶16

3. SMT.DEEPTHY.T., G.H.S.S., KUNISSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.DILIP MOHAN

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶20

- - - - W.P. (C) No. 15579 OF 2010

¶21

- - - - Dated this the 16^th day of June, 2010

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The petitioner who is working as a Higher Secondary School Teacher(Chemistry) was transferred and posted as per Ext.P2 dated 28.4.2010 to Government High School, Edappally. The said order would also reveal that the 3^rd respondent who was working in the said school was transferred and posted to Government Higher Secondary School, Kunissery, Palakkad. Subsequently, Ext.P3 order dated 17.5.2010 has been issued by the first respondent in modification of Ext.P2 in respect of the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent. As per the same, the petitioner who was transferred and posted to Government Higher Secondary School, Edappally was ordered to be transferred and posted to Government Higher secondary School, Paliyam, Chendamangalam and the 3^rd respondent who was ordered to be transferred and posted to Government Higher Secondary School, Kunissery, Palakkad was ordered to be retained at Government Higher Secondary School, Edappally itself. It is

¶24

WPC.15579/2010

¶25

: 2 :

¶26

in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

¶27

When this matter came up for admission on 20.5.2010 this court passed an interim order directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in Govt.Higher Secondary School, Edappally. The said order has been extended from time to time. In the meanwhile, the first respondent has issued order No. Ad/C5/33983/HSC/09 dated 11.6.2010. As per the same, the 3^rd respondent who is a native of Thiruvananthapuram has been transferred and posted to Government Higher Secondary School, Palayamkunnu in Thiruvananthapuram District. The said order dated 11.6.2010 has not been objected to by the 3^rd respondent. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the said order has been issued on her option. At any rate, in the light of the said order dated 11.6.2010 there cannot be any impediment at all in allowing the petitioner to continue in Government Higher Secondary School, Edappally as originally ordered as per Ext.P2. To enable the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in Government Higher Secondary

¶28

WPC.15579/2010

¶29

: 3 :

¶30

School, Edappally, Ext.P3 is set aside to the extent it pertains to the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent. It is made clear that interference with Ext.P3 shall not be construed as interference with Order No. Ad/C5/33983/HSE/09 dated 11.6.2010.

¶31

This writ petition is allowed as above. It is further clarified that this judgment would not stand in way of the transfer of the petitioner in terms of the transfer norms on expiry of the normal period of stay, viz., three years.

¶32

Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)

¶33

jma

¶34

//true copy//

¶35

P.A to Judge

Sujitha.S v. Director of Higher Secondary Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujitha.S v. Director of Higher Secondary Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lintu P.Panakkal Vs the Manager, M.J.D.High School

Meera.a Vs the Deputy Director of Education

V.T.Vasudevan Vs the State of Kerala and Others

Cochin Port Employees Sangh Vs Govt.of India and Others

Beena Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Sreedevi M.S. Vs State of Kerala