Disposed

Santers Baby v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Oct 2013WP(C)/19445/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a transfer and complained that a junior was transferred instead, allegedly violating seniority rules. The court disposed of the petition by directing the subordinate director of education to consider the pending internal appeal and pass appropriate orders within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider the pending appeal and pass appropriate orders within two months, putting respondents 4 and 5 on notice.

Santers Baby Vs State of Kerala — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/30TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 19445 of 2013 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SANTERS BABY, AGED 38 YEARS S/O OF K.E.BABYKUTTY HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MALAYALAM) M.T.D.M HIGH SCHOOL, THONDERNAD, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

¶12

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 305.

¶13

THE CORPORATE MANAGER, SOCIETY OF THE ORDER OF SACRED TRANSFIGURATION MOUNT TABOR PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 689 695.

¶14

SMT.BIJI GEORGE,

¶15

HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MALAYALAM) MOUNT TABOR HIGH SCHOOL, PATHANAPURAM KOLLAM DISTRICT - 689 695.

¶16

R4 BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI

¶17

R4 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.A.LOWSY

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No. 19445 of 2013 (E)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶22

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 04.06.2012 OF THE PETITIONER.

¶23

EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 01.03.2013 OF THE PETITIONER.

¶24

EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 15.07.2013 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶26

EXT.R4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 29.1.2013 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXT.R4(b): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDR NO.B6/2256/2013/K/Dis. DATED 4.7.2013 OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOLLAM.

¶28

EXT.R4(c): TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF TEACHING AND NONTEACHING STAFF AS ON 1.1.2008.

// TRUE COPY //

TKS

P.S. TO JUDGE

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶33

W.P.(C)No.19445 of 2013 ------------------------------Dated 22^nd October, 2013

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

The petitioner is working as H.S.A.(Malayalam) under the 4^th respondent Manager in M.T.D.M.High School, Thondernad in Wayanad District. As per Ext.P1 application, the petitioner requested for transfer to Pathanapuram in Kollam District. The grievance of the petitioner is that without considering her request made as per Ext.P1 the 5^th respondent who is junior to her was transferred to Mount Tabor High School, Pathanapuram under the said educational agency. According to the petitioner, this was done in violation of the provisions under Rule 10 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules.

¶36

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent and also the learned Government Pleader. In view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the 5^th respondent in this proceedings.

¶37

Evidently, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 appeal in tune with the provisions under Rule 10 of Chapter XIV-A of KER raising her grievances against the order transferring the 5^th respondent ignoring

¶38

WP(C).No.19445/2013 2

¶39

her claim and allegedly in violation of the rule of seniority. Since the said appeal is pending before the second respondent, without making any observation as to the merits of the rival contentions, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 appeal in accordance with law, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Needless to say that before passing orders thereon respondents 4 and 5 shall also be put on notice.

¶40

Sd/C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge

¶41

TKS

Santers Baby v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santers Baby 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.M.Parameswaran Vs the Dist.Educational Officer

Mrs.Mary George Vs State of Kerala and 3 Others

Pramod.W.P Vs the State of Kerala

Parent Teacher Association Vs State of Kerala

Jayadev G.Pai Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh P R Vs K S E Board