Partly allowed

Renya George v. the Director

Kerala HC3 Dec 2014WA/1374/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala modified a Single Judge's judgment in an inter-collegiate transfer dispute, directing authorities to consider the claims of the two competing students based on merit and rules, rather than exclusively relying on the cited compassionate grounds for the other student.

What did the court decide?

Directed 1st respondent to consider petitioner's and 4th respondent's claims per rules and regulations within four weeks after hearing affected parties.

Renya George Vs the Director — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

WA.No.1374 of 2014

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.8436/2014 of this HONOURABLE COURT.

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WPC NO.8436 OF 2014:

¶8

REYNA GEORGE,(SECOND YEAR 3RD SEMESTER B. TECH (EEE) STUDENT,AS ON SEPT.2014,COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, CHENGANNUR) RESIDING AT PARAPPULLY HOUSE, KADUPPASSERY P.O,THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN-680698.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.JOLLY JOHN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESONDENTS WPC NO.8436 OF 2014:

¶11

1. THE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT (IHRD), PRAJO'E TOWERS,VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

¶12

2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

3. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O,KOCHI-682022.

¶14

4. JOSEPH SEN K. ROBIN,KUZHUPPILLIL HOUSE, MAMBILLIPARAMBU ROAD, MAROTTICHODE JUNCTION, EDAPALLY P.O,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682024.

¶15

5. THE PRINCIPAL,MODEL ENGINEERING COLLEGE, BMC P.O,THRIKKAKARA,ERNAKULAM-682021.

¶16

R1 BY SRI.V.A.MOHAMMED, SC, IHRD R2 BY SPECIAL GOVT. PLEADER SMT.GIRIJA GOPAL R3 BY SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI,SC. BY SRI.D.SREEKUMAR

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

ASHOK BHUSHAN, Ag.CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶20

*** * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.A.No.1374 of 2014

¶21

Dated this the 3^rd day of December 2014

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Shaffique,J

¶24

Petitioner in W.P.C.No.8436/2014 is the appellant. She challenges the judgment by which the learned Single Judge refusing to interfere with the order of transfer of the 4^th respondent.

¶25

The facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner was studying for the first year B.Tech (EEE) in the College of Engineering, Chengannoor where the 4^th respondent was also studying. In the Kerala Entrance Engineering rank list, the rank of the petitioner was 22069 and that of the 4^th respondent was 24726. An occasion had arisen when a circular was issued by the Registrar, Cochin University of Science and Technology calling for application for inter collegiate transfer. Petitioner submits that though she applied for transfer to the 5^th respondent College immediately, she was not given No Objection Certificate by the College and therefore transfer was not effected. Later, it has come to the notice of the petitioner that the 4^th

¶26

W.A.No.1374/2014

¶27

¶28

respondent was transferred to the 5^th respondent college against the norms. Reference is made by the petitioner to Ext.P3, an order issued by the Government for inter collegiate transfer, which inter alia indicates that transfer of students from one college to another shall be made on the basis of merit taking into consideration the rank and marks gained by them in the entrance examination.

¶29

It is contended by the 4^th respondent that the transfer was made on compassionate basis. The appellant challenges the aforesaid action of the official respondents inter alia stating that the application submitted by the 4^th respondent for transfer was not based on compassionate grounds and that apart, reasons stated cannot be made applicable to the 4^th respondent. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that since the petitioner is having a better rank than that of the 4^th respondent, the first opportunity for transfer should have been given to her. The learned Single Judge, however dismissed the writ petition forming an opinion that the petitioner had been given an opportunity to apply for transfer after the second semester and that apart, the learned Single Judge had found that

¶30

W.A.No.1374/2014

¶31

¶32

the transfer granted to the 4^th respondent cannot be interfered with as the same was on compassionate grounds.

¶33

The learned counsel for the appellant points out that the transfer issued in favour of the 4^th respondent was in violation of the norms prescribed. It is also submitted that the rules and regulations relating to transfer has not been strictly complied with and the compassionate grounds stated in favour of the 4^th respondent were not available at the relevant time.

¶34

A perusal of the orders, which are under challenge, does not disclose that a proper consideration of the respective merits of the claim between the petitioner and the 4^th respondent has been considered by the authorities. The learned Single Judge also did not go into the said factual circumstances whereas the learned Judge only observed that the transfer granted to the 4^th respondent is not being interfered with as the same was done on compassionate grounds. As to whether 4^th respondent should be preferred as against the claim of the petitioner/appellant, is a matter which requires consideration.

¶35

Accordingly, we direct the 1^st respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner as well as the 4^th respondent in

¶36

W.A.No.1374/2014

¶37

¶38

accordance with the rules and regulations and take a proper decision in the matter after hearing the affected parties, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶39

This writ appeal is disposed of modifying the judgment dated 18/06/2014 in W.P.C.No.8436/2014 of the learned Single Judge, to the extent indicated above.

¶40

(sd/-) (ASHOK BHUSHAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶41

(sd/-)

¶42

(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶43

jsr

¶44

W.A.No.1374/2014 5

¶45

W.A.No.1374/2014 6

Renya George v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renya George v. the Director

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

M/S.Shriram Epc Limited Vs James.M.

Special Tahsildar Vs K.Ramachandran Nair & Another

Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Shanavaz J.

Dr.Ajith Kumar Vs the Chancellor

V.S.Sunilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Vs the Circle Inspector of Police