JUDGMENT :

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

This intra court appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Single Judge interfering with the transfer order approved by the Educational Authority of a teacher regarding transfer from one school to another under Corporate Managers. The transfer order did not mention the reason for the transfer. Under the Kerala Educational Rules (KER) transfer can be only effected in accordance with Rule 10 of Chapter XIV (A). It is appropriate to refer Rule 10 of Chapter XIV (A) of KER.

“10. Transfers:-Where more than one school is under the same Educational Agency, the Educational Agency may transfer any teacher from one school to another and in deciding on these transfers the principles followed in Government Schools shall be observed to the extent possible. The principles of transfer shall be as follows:-

(1) The chief and for most criterion for transfer of Headmaster [and teacher] shall be the seniority.

2) Every Headmaster [and teacher] shall be allowed to exercise choice of 3 or more schools.

(3) Exceptions to the seniority criterion shall be the bare minimum. Exception shall include close relatives of Jawans, Intercast marriage, Physically handicapped, other grounds for special consideration, compassionate grounds, persons who have only one year of service left for retirement etc,

(4) Cases coming under administrative interest shall include unsuitability, allegations of corruption, misuse of official position, disciplinary action, incompetence, and consistent poor performance.

(5) Cases of deviation from the seniority norms shall be appealable before the Director of Public Instruction, who shall decide the case.

(6) All exceptions to the general rule of seniority put together may not exceed 25% transfers.

(7) Mutual transfers on request shall not be entertained.

(8) The number of transfers shall be limited to twice or thrice a year.”

2. According to the Manager, the reason for the transfer is on account of the misbehaviour of the teacher. In the counter affidavit filed, it is stated that, on the basis of the complaint from the students, such action was resorted by the Manager and the transfer falls under the Rule 10(4), Chapter XIV A of KER.

3. Since it is a case coming under sub-rule 4, we are only examining the legality of action with reference to Sub-rule 4 of Rule 10.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents, referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India and Others v. Janardhan Debanath and Another [2004 KHC 951], submits that it is a matter for the employer to consider transfer depending upon the administrative necessities and sometimes it is used as a solution for the problems faced by the administration. Therefore, it is submitted that the transfer effected is legally justifiable.

5. We, at this outset, must state that the judgment of the Apex Court is not applicable in this matter as this transfer has to be in accordance with the statutory rule. When the statute prescribes a certain procedure to be followed, the transfer has to be effected only by following such procedure mentioned therein. Therefore, we are examining this case with reference to sub-rule 4 of Rule 10.

6. According to the learned counsel for the Manager, sub rule (4) does not prescribe any procedure to be followed for conducting an enquiry for effecting the transfer. We disagree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the Manager. Principles of natural justice is not an empty formality. If a transfer is effected with reference to sub-rule 4 of Rule 10, it results in civil consequences stigmatizing a teacher by categorizing her of misbehaviour, misuse of official position, incompetentancy or low performance etc., that demand compliance of principles of natural justice by initiating an enquiry by the Manager and giving fullest opportunity to the teacher to rebut any allegations.

7. In a recent judgment of this Court in State of Kerala v. P.K.Radhakrishna [2023 (6) KLT 256], we observed that the principles of natural jus