MALATHEE DEVI.M Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext P8 order transferring her from the Devaswom Board High School (in short 'DBHS'), Vamanapuram to DBHS, Parumala. She, inter alia, seeks to quash Ext P8 order.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that, she is working as High School Assistant (Malayalam) under the fourth respondent. She is suffering from heart disease and is under treatment in the Sree Chithira Thirunal Institute for Medical Science and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner had submitted an application before the fourth respondent seeking transfer from DBHS, Thrikkariyoor to DBHS, Vamanapuram. Due to the non-consideration of her application, she had filed a revision petition before the first respondent. Again, due to inaction on the part of the first respondent, the petitioner filed WP(C) 16874/2018 before this Court. This Court by Ext P2 judgment, directed the first respondent to consider the revision petition. Consequently, as per Ext P3 order, the first respondent directed the fourth respondent to consider the petitioner's application for transfer, in the next general transfer. Resultantly, as directed in Exts P2 and P3, the fourth respondent transferred the petitioner to DBHS, Vamanapuram, where she joined on 6.6.2019. During her tenure at the DBHS, Vamanapuram, certain misunderstandings cropped up with the management. The fourth respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, on the allegation that an application was filed by her husband under the Right to Information Act . The petitioner submitted Ext P7 reply, inter alia, stating that she was innocent. However, the respondents 3 to 5 were hostile towards her. Shockingly, on 1.6.2020, the fourth respondent issued Ext P8 order, transferring the petitioner from DBHS, Vamanapuram to DBHS, Parumala. Being aggrieved by the said transfer, the petitioner has preferred Ext P9 appeal before the second respondent. Notwithstanding Ext P9, the petitioner seeks to quash Ext P8 order or in the alternative to direct the second respondent to consider and dispose of Ext P9 appeal within a time frame.

(3.) The fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit, inter alia, contending that the petitioner was transferred as per Ext P8, which is a general transfer order. Pursuant to Ext P8, the sixth respondent was relieved from DBHS, Parumala on 1.6.2020 and she joined DBHS, Vamanapuram on the very same day. Although the petitioner was informed about her transfer, she unauthorizedly absented herself, which fact is suppressed in the writ petition. According to the fourth respondent, the second respondent had directed the fourth respondent to consider the transfer of the sixth respondent during this academic year, in conformity with the seniority as stipulated under Rule 10 (1) of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules (in short 'KER'). It is further contended that Ext P1 medical record is only an appointment slip and does not show that the petitioner is suffering from any ailment. Ext P8 being a general transfer order, the same cannot be treated as punitive in nature. Moreover, the sixth respondent had applied for transfer to DBHS, Vamanapuram, as per her seniority, which was considered in accordance with law. Resultantly, the sixth respondent was given preference to the petitioner and Ext P8 order was passed.