LININ V.BHASKARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who is an Assistant Professor in Malayalam working in SN College Chempazhanthy, under the 5th respondent management is challenging Ext.P16 letter of the second respondent by which her transfer ordered in Ext.P10 order is directed to be cancelled. It is also directed that petitioner and Smt Smitha Prakash shall be transferred back to the respective Colleges.

(2.) Second respondent has stated that the petitioner was transferred from SN College Punalur to SN College Chempazhanthy where there are only 2 posts of Assistant Professors in Malayalam and that the petitioner is transferred to a non existing 3 rd post. It is stated that Smt Smitha Prakash is also transferred in similar lines against the non existing 6th post in SN College, Varkala. It is further stated that on account of such transfers against non sanctioned posts, the teachers are approaching this Court and the orders from the Court in favour of such teachers result in serious financial difficulties to Government. It is stated that transfers are ordered despite warning given to Management not to make such transfers.

(3.) Petitioner points out that she had already approached this Court in W.P.(C).No.22331 of 2019 when she was denied salary on her transfer to SN College, Chempazhanthy. The denial of salary was on the ground that 3rd post of Assistant Professor in Malayalam was not sanctioned in the said College. Based on the work load fixed by the University as per order dated 06.01.2012 referred to in letter issued by the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education to the Principal of the SN College, Chempazhanthy, this Court found that the 3rd post in Malayalam was sanctioned. It was also found that the previous incumbent in the post was granted approval in the 3 rd post of Assistant Professor in Malayalam from 10.11.2012 onwards. The respondents were thereupon directed to disburse the salary due to the petitioner. It is thereafter that the second respondent has passed the order Ext.P16, which runs contrary to the findings in Ext.P15 judgment.