Dr Ranjith Ram, S/O a Raman, Vs State of Kerala

DR RANJITH RAM, S/O A RAMAN, AGED 50 YEARS S/O A RAMAN,AYODHYA, ATTENGANAM. P.O, KASARGOD, 671 531,WORKING AS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION ENGINEERING, GOVT COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KANNUR, PIN – 670 563

¶16

BY ADV T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI

¶17

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN OA:

¶18

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001

¶19

2 THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, PADMAVILASAM STREET, FORT. P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 023

¶20

3 PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE,P.O, PARASSINIKADAVU, MANGATTUPARAMBA,KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670 563

¶21

2

¶22

2025:KER:29843

¶23

O.P. (KAT) No.145 of 2025

¶24

A.J. VARGHESE SR GP

¶25

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

O.P. (KAT) No.145 of 2025

3

2025:KER:29843

J U D G M E N T

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

¶31

The petitioner is an Associate Professor in the Department of Electronic and Communication Engineering, Government Engineering College, Kannur. He is also the Head of the Department. He has been continuing in the Government Engineering College, Kannur, for more than 23 years. In general transfer, the petitioner has been posted at the Government Engineering College, Wayanad. He made a representation raising grievances. This was considered by the Government and by a detailed Order dated 23.10.2024, the Government rejected his representation. The grievances raised by him are that he has a son studying in 10^th standard, who has acute disabilities. A disability certificate has been produced as Annexure A7. The certificate issued by the Government Medical College, Kannur, shows that the child has mild intellectual disability, the disability has been assessed at 50 percent, and the IQ level is only 60.

¶32

The petitioner has approached the Tribunal challenging the rejection of his representation. The Tribunal

¶33

2025:KER:29843

¶34

O.P. (KAT) No.145 of 2025 4

¶35

dismissed the challenge. Normally, the court is not expected to interfere with the transfer unless such transfer is manifestly arbitrary, illegal, or in violation of any norms. This is not an issue coming within the ambit of any of the above criteria. The question is whether personal matters related to a government servant are required to be considered while affecting such a transfer, especially when a child suffers from disabilities. In the impugned order itself, the Government overruled the objection and stated that the personal matter of an individual government servant cannot be considered. This is, according to us, in the context of this case, legally unsustainable.

¶36

Under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, a person suffering from disabilities has been conferred with certain rights. A Division Bench of this Court had considered this matter in detail in Balan v. Union of India [2024 (1) KHC 64] and held that the employer was bound to consider whether the disabled child required the environment he enjoyed in equal measures, consequent upon such transfer being effected. In paragraphs 11 and 12, it is held as follows:

¶37

“11. Thus, the question arises whether absence of the petitioner would deprive the child, the environment he

¶38

2025:KER:29843

¶39

5

¶40

O.P. (KAT) No.145 of 2025

¶41

enjoyed in equal measures with others. Considering the age and other factors, it cannot be said that his wife would be able to adequately maintain the child. If any of the rights of the disabled child is denied by his absence, going by S.5 of Chapter II of PWD Act, the transfer order passed, without adverting to such right of the child, becomes illegal. In the normal routine of matter, an organisation is not expected to have a consideration of the personal matters of an employee. However, when such personal matters are intertwined with the rights conferred under law, the organisation is bound to address such matters and make sure that the transfer would not affect the child's best interest.

¶42

12. The balancing factors of administrative interest and individual interest of an employee vis - a - vis the rights of a child with disability, will have to be primarily done by the organisation. After adverting to all the circumstances in the matter including medical reports of the child, the living environment, community life etc., it is for the organisation to balance their administrative need and the need of an employee with reference to such a child.”

¶43

In the light of the Rights of Persons with

¶44

Disabilities Act, 2016, and various U.N. conventions referred to in

¶45

the above judgment, it is imperative for the Government to consider and find out whether the rights of a child or disabled person would be affected consequent upon effecting transfer. In the light of the law as above, we direct the Government to reconsider the matter afresh after hearing the petitioner and also adverting to the circumstances related to the child. An appropriate decision shall be taken within a period of two months. Till then, the petitioner is permitted to continue there.

¶46

2025:KER:29843

¶47

O.P. (KAT) No.145 of 2025

¶48

6

¶49

The impugned order of the Tribunal as well as the order passed

¶50

by the Government are set aside.

¶51

The original petition is disposed of as above.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

P. KRISHNA KUMAR

JUDGE

PR

2025:KER:29843

O.P. (KAT) No.145 of 2025

¶61

7

¶62

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 145/2025

¶63

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶64

Annexure A-1 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. G1/94/2024 H EDU. DEPARTMENT DATED 03-06-2024 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT

¶65

Annexure A-2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT DATED 10-06-2024 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT Annexure A-3 TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT LIST NIMBER DTETVM/2177/2024-EA1(EA) DATED 05-052024 PROPOSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO 1ST RESPONDENT Annexure A-4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.(EKM) 1043/2024 DATED 05-08-2024 IN O.A. (EKM) NO. 1043/2024 OF THE HON'BLE KAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH Annexure A-5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. GO (RT) 1071/2024 DATED 21-08-2024 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT

¶66

Annexure A-6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA (EKM) NO. 1114/2024 DATED 23-08-2024 OF THE HON'BLETRIBUNAL

¶67

Annexure A-7 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF DISABILITY OF APPLICANT'S SON ISSUED FROM MEDICAL BOARD AT GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, PARIYARAM DATED 11-09-2024

¶68

Annexure A-8 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 08-10-2018 OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA Annexure A-9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. GO (MS) NO. 22/2022 E.A.R. DEPARTMENT DATED 26-092022 OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA Annexure A-10 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 12-09-2024 TO 1ST RESPONDENT

¶69

2025:KER:29843

¶70

O.P. (KAT) No.145 of 2025

¶71

8

¶72

Annexure A-11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. GO (RT). 1327/2024/HEDN DATED 23-10-2024 ISSUED FROM 1ST RESPONDENT

¶73

Annexure A-12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. GCEKNR/2715/24-E2 DATED 25-10-2024 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Annexure A-13 TRUE COPY OF THE PDF PROPERTY OF ANNEXURE A-12 Annexure A-14 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE HEAD MASTER GHSS, MORAZHA DATED 2002-2025 Annexure A-15 TRUE COPY OF THE UNOFFICIAL NOTES OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO RETAIN AN EMPLOYEE AT GCE, THRISSUR DATED 27-03-2024 Annexure A-16 TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT) NO. 1568/2024 HEDN DATED 18-12-2024 Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF O.A. NO. 1421/2024 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, ERNAKJULAM DATED 28-10-2024 Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN O.A. NO. 1421/2024 DATED 29-01-2025 Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.A. NO. 1421/2024 DATED 03-03-2025 Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18-03-2025 IN OA (EKM) NO. 1421/2024 OF THE KAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, CAMP SITTING AT ERNAKULAM

Dr Ranjith Ram, S/O a Raman, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Ranjith Ram, S/O a Raman, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.B.Wilson Vs State of Kerala

V.A Abdul Kareem Vs K.K Lajid

Baby Shylamma Vs State of Kerala

M.K. Noorudeen Vs Mohammed Idries

P.Gopalakrishnan@Dileep Vs State of Kerala

Sinaj Vs Parvathi Prabhakaran