Kerala High Court
M.Shamsudeen Kunju vs The Director Of Technical Education on 28 June, 2011
Author: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
Bench: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8721 of 2011(M)
1. M.SHAMSUDEEN KUNJU, DEMONSTRATOR IN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
... Respondent
2. JOICE MATHEW, DEMONSTRATOR IN
3. SHRI.S.JAYAPRAKASH, DEMONSTRATOR IN
4. SHRI.P.OMKARAM, DEMONSTRATOR IN
For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAJU BABU
For Respondent :SRI.P.SREEKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :28/06/2011
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.8721 OF 2011
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2011.
J U D G M E N T
In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P4 proceedings of the Director of Technical Education whereby he is transferred to WPTC, Kalamassery and in his place the 2nd respondent is posted. The petitioner has raised various contentions in the writ petition.
2. Going by Ext.P3 proceedings which contains the proposal for transfer, Sl.No.3 Jayaprakash.S, who is the 3rd respondent in the writ petition and who is also continuing in Vennikulam was proposed to be transferred to GPTC, Nedumangad in the place of Smt.Krishnakumary and the said Krishnakumary, who is Sl.No.4 in the proceedings, was proposed to be transferred to GPTC, Cherthala. The petitioner was to be transferred to WPTC, Kayamkulam and the 4th respondent was proposed to be transferred from WPTC, Kayamkulam to GPTC, Vennikulam in his place. The 2nd respondent herein who is in Kalamassery had W.P.(C) No.8721/2011 2 requested for a transfer to Vennikulam.
3. When the proceedings were finalised after objections were received, Sl.No.3 Jayaprakash and Sl.No.4 Krishnakumary in Ext.P3 were not disturbed. The petitioner is now transferred in the place of the 2nd respondent to Kalamassery and Sri.P.Omkaram who is the 4th respondent herein is retained in Kayamkulam itself. The 2nd respondent is transferred to Vennikulam in the place of petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has completed three years in Vennikulam and the 3rd respondent Jayaprakash has already completed 4 = years therein and if at all anybody had to be retained among the two in Vennikulam, it should have been the petitioner. It is also submitted that as far as the proposal for his transfer to Kalamassery is concerned, there was no fresh proposal and therefore he could not make any objection in the matter and the same is against his application.
5. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the 2nd respondent was already due for transfer and she made a W.P.(C) No.8721/2011 3 request and that has been allowed, and there is no contesting claims between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that the 4th respondent also wants a transfer to Vennikulam and he has not been granted the said request. It is also stated that he has no objection in continuing in Kayamkulam or Vennikulam.
6. Evidently, when the proposal was revised, as regards the petitioner, objections ought to have been called for otherwise when the proposal Ext.P3 was finalised after variation and after accepting objections of certain parties, the petitioner and other persons who were proposed to be transferred were kept in dark about the same.
7. In the statement filed by the 1st respondent, as regards the retention of Smt.Krishnakumary, it is stated that she had given a representation. But with regard to the retention of Sri.Jayaprakash, no whisper has been made in the statement and no reasons have been pointed out for the same. Therefore, the only option is to direct the 1st respondent to reconsider the request of the petitioner along with that of the 4th respondent. W.P.(C) No.8721/2011 4 Appropriate orders will be passed after considering the claim of all the parties and with notice to them within a period of three weeks.
8. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the 2nd respondent has already completed two years in Kalamassery and as the petitioner has no claim against the said respondent, the interim order may be vacated for allowing the 2nd respondent to join the place at Vennikulam. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent also submitted that unless a proper decision is taken by the 1st respondent after considering all the competing claims, the issues cannot be settled.
9. Evidently, the petitioner's contentions are confined to the objections against the 3rd respondent as well as the retention of Smt.Krishnakumary who is not a party here. These aspects will be gone through by the 1st respondent apart from considering the claim of the 4th respondent also. The 2nd respondent's transfer has not been challenged by anybody.
Therefore, the retention of the petitioner pursuant to the interim order will continue for a period of three weeks and orders W.P.(C) No.8721/2011 5 as directed will be passed by the 1st respondent within the above period. If, for any reason, orders are not passed within the said period, the 2nd respondent will be allowed to join at Vennikulam.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp