The main legal point established in the judgment is that administrative measures, such as transfer, can be used to ensure efficiency and discipline in a school, without being considered as a form of punishment.

1. Petitioner was appointed as a Primary Department Teacher in the former State of Cochin by the Staff Selection Board in 1122 M. E. Petitioner has been working in the Sree Rama Varma High School since 1954 and in the Sree Rama Varma Upper Primary School since 1961, after the bifurcation of Upper primary and Lower primary schools. On 13101966, the respondent, the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction, received a copy of a letter dated 1110 66 from the Assistant Educational Officer, Ernakulam, addressed to the District Educational Officer, Ernakulam, stating inter alia that the Assistant Educational Officer has received a report from the Headmaster of the Sree Rama Varma Upper primary School Ernakulam, where the petitioner was working as a Primary Department Teacher, that the petitioner is not writing his notes of lessons in spite of specific instructions issued to him by the Headmaster of the School in this regard, that the petitioner is refusing to comply with the lawful directions issued by the Headmaster of the school regarding the preparation and maintenance of notes of lessons on the ground that the teacher is not provided with necessary copies of text books for reference, though the other teachers of the school are maintaining and writing notes of lessons properly without any complaint regarding non-availability of text books, that there is no reason why the petitioner should refuse to maintain notes of lessons on the technical ground that text books are not supplied at Government cost, that allowing the petitioner alone to go on without notes of lessons will be setting a bad precedent and will also demoralise the other teachers in the school and that under these circumstances necessary disciplinary action may be taken against the petitioner in the interests of the efficiency and discipline of the school. On receiving a copy of the said letter, the respondent by his memo dated 15101966 directed the District Educational Officer, Ernakulam, to make necessary enquiries into the matter and submit a detailed report to the respondent. Accordingly, the District Educational Officer, Ernakulam, after making necessary enquiries into the matter sent a detailed report. In that report, he stated that the petitioner had been consistently refusing to prepare notes of lessons for the last three years and that in spite of the directions issued by the Headmaster of the School to maintain notes of lessons, the petitioner was not preparing notes of lessons, that the petitioner's conduct, if further allowed to continue unchecked, will set a bad example to the other teachers of the school and will injuriously affect the pupils and will bring down the efficiency and discipline of the school. The District Educational Officer also recommended that disciplinary action should be taken against the petitioner. The respondent examined the report of the District Educational Officer and passed the order in question. By that order the petitioner was transferred and posted as Primary Department Teacher in Govt. Lower Primary School, Santhanpara in Kanjirappally District and the Headmaster of the Sree Rama Varma Upper Primary School, Ernakulam, was directed to relieve the petitioner forthwith with instructions to him to join duty in that school.

2. Petitioner questions this order on the ground that the transfer was by way of punishment and that no order for transfer could be passed for punishing a teacher as transfer is not one of the punishments provided in the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 and therefore order for transfer ought to be quashed. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the order for transfer was passed not for punishing the petitioner but for administrative reasons and that the respondent had jurisdiction and justification to transfer the petitioner-teacher. Petitioner's counsel referred me to the ruling in Sangam Lal v. U. P. Education