S. KRISHNAKUMARI Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was the writ petitioner. The respondents herein were the respondents in the Writ Petition.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are the following:

(3.) THE new post can be created without disturbing existing teachers in the core subjects. In other words, normally the post of HSA (English) should be filled up when open clear vacancies are available for the same. Here what was available was only a transfer vacancy, arising out of mutual transfer of two High School Assistants. So, the insistence of the Educational Officer that said vacancy should also filled up by an HSA (English) is unsupportable in law. The stand of the Government upholding the above view is also unsustainable. By mutual transfer, no vacancy is created and therefore, there is no question of appointing any HSA (English). If an HSA (English) is appointed, the same will create an anomalous position, which we have already mentioned, that the junior most HSA (Maths) would be thrown out of service. So, the basic premise based on which Ext.P1 was cancelled and the same was upheld by higher authorities is unsupportable in law. Therefore, the impugned orders are quashed and Ext.P1 to the extent it concerns the transfer of the appellant and 4th respondent is restored. But, if the 5th respondent has got any grievance against Ext.P1, he will be free to invoke the statutory remedy available to him under the K.E.R. against it.