Disposed

Shiji T.V v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Feb 2023WP(C)/148/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the transfer and relieving orders challenge but disposed of the petition by directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's subsequent appeal within six weeks, affording an opportunity of hearing to all parties before passing final orders.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; 2nd respondent directed to consider appeal (Exhibit P4) within six weeks and afford opportunity of hearing.

Shiji T.V Vs the State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 148 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

SHIJI T.V
AGED 44 YEARS
HST(SS), MGM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL ENGAPUZHA,
PUDUPPADY VIA., THAMARSSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
NOW RESIDING AT NJARATHADATHIL HOUSE, PUDUPPADY
P.O., ENGAPUZHA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673586
BY ADVS.EBIN MATHEW
P.J.MATHEW
AKHILA SHOJI

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT ANNEX-II, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶9

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014

¶10

3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 695014

¶11

4 THE MANAGER CATHOCATE & M.D SCHOOLS, (CORPORATE MANAGEMENT), DEVALOKAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686004

¶12

5 HEAD MASTER, M.G.M HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL ENGAPUZHA., PUDUPPADI P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673586

¶13

ADDL.R6. SHARIN SHAHANA E.V. AGED 29 YEARS D/O. LATE. ABDUL LATHEEF, AGED 29 YEARS, ETTUVEETTIL HOUSE, KOORIYAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 306 PRESENTLY APPOINTED AS HST, (SOCIAL SCIENCE, MGM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ENGAPUZHA, PUTHUPPADY P.0, KOZHIKKODE 673 586

¶14

 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 6TH RESPONDENT AS PER

¶15

WP(C).No.148/2023

¶16

¶17

THE ORDER DATED 10.01.2023 IN I.A.1/2023.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.M.FAISAL, GP
ROSHEN D. ALEXANDER D
ARUN CHANDRAN
TINA ALEX THOMAS(K/000532/2004)
HARIMOHAN(K/000327/2018)
KOCHURANI JAMES(K/003502/2022)
ANJALY T.A

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 22.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No.148/2023

¶20

¶21

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶22

W.P.(C).No.148 of 2023

¶23

Dated this the 22^nd day of February, 2023

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

¶26

i. To call for entire records that lead to the passing of exhibit P-2 and P-3 orders and quash the same by the issuance of writ of Certiorari or any other writ direction or order.

¶27

ii. To declare that the exhibit P-2 and P-3 orders are arbitrary and unsustainable and petitioner is liable to be retained in the present school itself.

¶28

iii. To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to retain the petitioner in MGM HSS Engapuzha itself.

¶29

iv. To pass any other order or directions this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶30

(SIC)

¶31

When this writ petition came up for consideration

¶32

on 04.01.2023, this Court passed the following order:

¶33

“Issue notice by special messenger to respondents 4 and 5. The learned Government

¶34

WP(C).No.148/2023

¶35

¶36

Pleader shall get instructions from respondents 1 to 3.

¶37

Sri. Ebin Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would point out that Ext.P3 relieving order does not disclose any reasons and is clearly violative of Rule 10 Chapter XIVA of the KER. According to the learned counsel, there is a post to accommodate the petitioner and it is not due to any exigency in service that the petitioner was issued with a transfer order, that too in the midst of an academic year. Having regard to the submissions advanced, Exts P2 and P3 will remain stayed and the petitioner shall be retained if there is a post to accommodate her.“

¶38

Thereafter the matter was heard in detail and the interim order was vacated as per order dated 10.01.2023, which is also extracted hereunder:

¶39

“I.A. No.1 of 2023

¶40

This is an application seeking to implead the applicant as additional 6^th respondent.

¶41

Sri. Ebin Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, raises objection.

¶42

However, I find from the affidavit that the applicant was appointed in the school on 03.01.2023, consequent to relieving the writ petitioner. The applicant asserts that she is subjected to serious

¶43

WP(C).No.148/2023

¶44

¶45

prejudice in view of the interim order.

¶46

In that view of the matter, I am inclined to allow this application.

¶47

W.P. (C) No.148 of 2023

¶48

I have heard Sri.Ebin Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Arun Chandran, the learned counsel appearing for the additional 6th respondent, and Sri. Roshan Alexander, the learned counsel appearing for the manager.

¶49

The writ petition was filed challenging Exts.P2 transfer order and P3 relieving order by which the petitioner was transferred to the M.D.Seminary Higher Secondary School, Kottayam.

¶50

When the matter had come up for admission, this Court, by an interim order dated 04.01.2023, had ordered to keep the proceedings pursuant to Exts.P2 and P3 in abeyance. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall be retained if there is a post to accommodate her.

¶51

The learned counsel appearing for the additional 6^th respondent submitted that the 6th respondent is a disabled person who was appointed by virtue of appointment order No.S296/10/22 dated 03.01.2023. On 3.1.2023 itself, she joined service immediately after the petitioner was relieved from the M.G. Higher Secondary School, Engappuzha. It is submitted that the writ petition was filed on 04.01.2023, and in view of the interim order, serious

¶52

WP(C).No.148/2023

¶53

¶54

hardship is being caused.

¶55

Sri. Ebin Mathew, the learned counsel, would refer to Rule 10 and Rule 12 of Chapter XIV A, and it is submitted that the contingencies stated therein has not been made out. It is further submitted that the petitioner could not ordinarily be transferred during the middle of the academic year.

¶56

It is by now settled that orders of transfer made in exercise of administrative discretion should not ordinarily be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, I find that the petitioner has already been relieved on 03.01.2023 as per Ext.P3 order and the additional respondent, a disabled teacher, has taken charge. Furthermore, the petitioner has a statutory remedy before the jurisdictional authorities.

¶57

In that view of the matter, the interim order will stand vacated.“

¶58

Today, when the matter came up for consideration,

¶59

the counsel for the petitioner submitted that there may be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 within a time frame.

¶60

Heard the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent Manager and the learned counsel for the additional 6^th respondent. I also heard the learned Government Pleader.

¶61

WP(C).No.148/2023

¶62

¶63

After hearing both sides, I think this writ petition itself can be disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 within a time frame.

¶64

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:

¶65

The 2^nd respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders in Ext.P4, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶66

Before passing final orders, the 2^nd respondent will afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondents 4 and 6.

¶67

The petitioner will produce certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 2^nd respondent for compliance.

¶68

sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

JUDGE

WP(C).No.148/2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 148/2023

¶74

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER
DATED 01/07/2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P-2A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO
CMD/TR/982/22 DATED 30/12/2022
Exhibit P-3A TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER
03/01/2023
Exhibit P4A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 03/01/2023

Shiji T.V v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiji T.V v. 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suhara.U Vs State of Kerala

Viswanathan v. Vs Smt. Santhy

Susan John Vs State of Kerala

T Sreekumaran Nair Vs V.G. Gopakumar

Niha A.S Vs the Central Board of Secondary Education

Ciby Thomas Oommen Vs State of Kerala