RENU SUSAN THOMAS Vs. THE CHAIRPERSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6430 of 2018 is before us in appeal aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.6.2018 dismissing the writ petition filed by her. The writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging Ext.P5 order by which she was transferred from Palluruthy to Uduma in Kasaragod District. As per Ext.P8 order dated 23.2.2018 she was also ordered to be relieved. This Court had admitted the writ petition and had granted an interim order of stay of Exts.P5 and P8. This Court has declined to interfere with the transfer by the judgment appealed against.

(2.) The appellant is an Associate Professor working on contract basis in the State Institute of Medical Education and Technology ('SI-MET' for short). The same is a State owned institution engaged in the conduct of Nursing Colleges at various places in the State. The appellant was appointed as an Associate Professor in December, 2015. The period of her contract is one year, with a clause for renewal from year to year. According to the appellant, she is also holding charge of the Vice Principal of the Nursing College at Palluruthy. It was in the said circumstances that she has now been transferred and posted to Uduma. The transfer order, according to the appellant, is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

(3.) The contention of the appellant is that, the real reason for her transfer is a difference of opinion that has cropped up between her and a union leader. Therefore, it was at his instance that she has been transferred, it is alleged. It is further contended that, there is no post of Associate Professor at Uduma, the place to which she is transferred. Therefore, her transfer in effect amounts to reversion and she would have to work at the transferred place, in an inferior post. On the basis of Annexure I order dated 25.6.2018, it is pointed out that, additional teaching staff have been appointed to Uduma and therefore, the allegation that there is no sufficient staff at the said place is wrong. Apart from the above, the petitioner complains that she is a person who has got a serious disability to her spine and consequent to a surgery undergone by her, she suffers from a lot of discomfort. Therefore, on health grounds also, her transfer to Uduma is liable to be set aside. Since the learned Single Judge has not considered any of the above aspects, it is contended that, the judgment under appeal requires to be interfered with and set aside. This appeal comes up before us for admission.