Disposed

Harigovind v. Vs the State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Nov 2022WP(C)/8866/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition seeks protection against a transfer order issued to relocate a Physical Education Teacher to Ernakulam. The court directed the Government to consider a fresh representation filed by the petitioner and to afford him a hearing, while the interim stay on the transfer order remained in force.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P7, afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, and pass appropriate orders within three months; interim stay on Ext.P5 order continued.

Harigovind v. Vs the State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8THDAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 17TH KARTHIKA,1944
WP(C) NO. 8866 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

HARIGOVIND V.

¶7

S/O. M.G.VIJAYAKUMAR, HARIPRIYA, NEDUMPRAM P.O.,
THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA -689 101,
(C.R.C. COORDINATOR, BRC CHENGANNUR).

¶8

BY ADV S.SUBHASH CHAND

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

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

¶11

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION), IDUKKI-685 602.

¶13

4 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION), ALAPPUZHA-688 001.

¶14

5 BLOCK PROGRAMME OFFICER, SARVA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN, ALAPPUZHA, BLOCK RESOURCE CENTRE, CHENGANNUR, PULIYOOR P.O., PIN-689 510.

¶15

6 BLOCK PROGRAMME OFFICER, BLOCK RESOURCE CENTRE, SARVA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN, NEDUMKANDAM, PIN-685 553.

¶16

¶17

W.P. (C) No.8866 of 2022

¶18

7 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KATTAPPANA-685 515.

¶19

8 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ALUVA-683 101.

¶20

SMT.NISHA BOSE, SR GP

¶21

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
08.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

W.P. (C) No.8866 of 2022

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The petitioner states that he commenced service as a UPSA (Physical

¶26

Education Teacher) in the NSS High School, Koottar, with effect from 26.06.2006 onwards, which appointment stood approved by the 7th respondent. While he was working as above, he was retrenched from service with effect from 12.07.2007. According to the petitioner, he was reappointed as Physical Education Teacher in the NSS High School, Parakkadavu, and while working as aforesaid, he was retrenched from service with effect from 31.01.2012 owing to division fall. The petitioner states that he was included in the Teacher’s bank, and he was appointed as CRC Coordinator in BRC Nedumkandam in terms of Ext.P1 order and he joined duty on 11.07.2018. He contends that due to the illness that affected his father, he applied for compassionate transfer, and he was appointed as CRC Coordinator in BRC Chengannur. The petitioner asserts that the vacancy in which the petitioner was appointed is still subsisting. While so, Ext.P5 order has been issued, by which the 3rd respondent has now ordered the transfer of the petitioner as CRC Coordinator to Ernakulam on the ground that there is no vacancy available to accommodate the petitioner in the Idukki District. According to the petitioner,

¶27

¶28

W.P. (C) No.8866 of 2022

¶29

the father of the petitioner is still undergoing treatment, and there is absolutely no justification for transferring and posting the petitioner as CRC Coordinator. It is in the afore circumstances that this writ petition is filed seeking directions.

¶30

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent countering the contentions advanced by the petitioner. It is stated that it is as per order dated 18.02.2022 that the DGE had ordered that the temporarily deployed protected teachers in the Districts within the jurisdiction of the 3rd respondent shall be permanently deployed to the Ernakulam District. It is also stated that there is no physical education post set apart by the Manager in the District and justified Ext.P5 order issued by the 3rd respondent.

¶31

Sri. Subhash Chand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that this Court, by an interim order dated 16.03.2022, had stayed the operation of Ext.P5. According to the learned counsel, pending consideration of the writ petition, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P7 representation before the 1st respondent and requested that the matter can be disposed of, directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P7. It is submitted that until orders are passed on Ext.P7, the interim order dated 16.03.2022 be ordered to continue.

¶32

¶33

W.P. (C) No.8866 of 2022

¶34

The learned Government Pleader submits that though she has no objection in directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P7, she reiterated that the deployment of the petitioner to Ernakulam District is a permanent arrangement for solving the issue with regard to the lien of protected teachers.

¶35

After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ petition, the submissions made across the Bar, and the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of by issuing the following directions:

¶36

a) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7, after affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or his authorized representative. Until orders are passed on Ext.P7, the interim order dated 16.03.2022 will continue.

¶37

b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶38

¶39

W.P. (C) No.8866 of 2022

¶40

c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy

¶41

of the writ petition along with I.A.No. 2 of 2022 and accompanying documents along with this judgment

¶42

before the concerned respondent for further action.

¶43

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

¶46

Sru

¶47

¶48

W.P. (C) No.8866 of 2022

¶49

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8866/2022

¶50

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶51

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 09.07.2018`	`ORDER BEARING NO.B5/11410/17` `ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3.`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `25.09.2018 OF RES`	`RELIEVING ORDER DATED` `PONDENT NO.6.`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `10.09.2018 ISSUED`	`BEARING NO.A4/12026/2018 DATED` `BY RESPONDENT NO.4.`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `26.09.2018 ISSUED`	`JOINING REPORT DATED` `BY RESPONDENT NO.5.`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 11.03.2022`	`ORDER BEARING NO.B5/9557/2019` `FOR RESPONDENT NO.3.`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `13.03.2022 SUBMIT` `RESPONDENT NO.2.`	`REPRESENTATION DATED` `TED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `SUBMITTED BY THE` `RESPONDENT.`	`REPRESENTATION DATED 2/11/2022` `PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST`

¶52

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

Harigovind v. Vs the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harigovind v. Vs the 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

Sreepriya.P., Vs State of Kerala

The Centre for Environment Architecture and Human Settlements Private Limited [Cearth] Vs State of Kerala

K.v.Samuel Vs Cochin Shipyard Ltd.

Naseema C. Vs the State of Kerala

Jijeesh R, Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Ninz Construction Private Ltd. Vs State of Kerala