SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 1243

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM 
N.NAGARESH, J.
Dr. Sukanya.S. Nair W/o. Vipinbabu - Appellant 
Vs.
The State Of Kerala - Respondent 
WP(C) No. 40892, 41930 Of 2024 
Decided On : 13-05-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K.R.GANESH, ELVIN PETER P.J. (SR.), GOURI BALAGOPAL, SREELEKSHMI A.S.
For the Respondent: SRI.TONY AUGUSTINE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SRI.R.T.PRADEEP, SRI.P.BIJIMON, SMT.M.BINDUDAS, SRI.NIRANJAN T. PRADEEP, SRI.BINNY THOMAS, SRI.P.SREEKUMAR (SR.), SMT.HELEN P.A., SRI.ATHUL ROY, SRI.INDRAJITH DILEEP, SMT.AMALA ANNA THOTTUPURAM, SRI.ABHILASH T.

Unilateral transfers of teachers between universities without adherence to statutory procedures are illegal and violate teachers' rights.

Headnote:

(A) Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 - Section 68 - Kerala University Act, 1974 - Section 64A - Transfer of Teachers - The petitioner, an Assistant Professor, challenged the legality of his transfer from NSS Hindu College to NSS College Cherthala, asserting it violated statutory provisions requiring a seniority list and teacher consent. The court found the transfer illegal as it did not adhere to the mandated procedures. (Paras 4, 13, 14)

(B) Educational Agency's Authority - The court ruled that the educational agency's claim of redeployment rather than transfer was unfounded, as the action constituted an unlawful transfer under the relevant statutes. (Paras 10, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was transferred without following the statutory requirements outlined in the MG University Act, leading to his junior status at the new institution.

Findings of Court:
The court quashed the transfer order and reinstated the petitioner at his original college.

Issues: The main issues included the legality of the transfer and adherence to statutory provisions regarding teacher transfers.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that unilateral transfers without proper procedures violate statutory rights of teachers.

Result: W.P.

(C) No.40892/2024 is disposed of quashing Ext.P2 order; W.P.

(C) No.41930/2024 is dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

N.NAGARESH, J.

W.P.(C) No.40892/2024 has been filed by the petitioner who is working as Assistant Professor (Economics), NSS College, Cherthala. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 order dated 23.09.2023 whereby the petitioner is transferred from NSS Hindu College, Changanassery under the MG University to the NSS College Cherthala under the Kerala University.

2. The 6th respondent-NSS Colleges Central Committee is a corporate educational agency. After a due selection process, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor (Economics) by the 6th respondent in NSS Hindu College, Changanassery as per Ext.P1 appointment order dated 01.03.2018. The petitioner joined service on 05.03.2018. The probation of the petitioner was declared.

3. While so, the 6th respondent issued Ext.P2 order transferring the petitioner from NSS Hindu College, Changanassery to NSS College, Cherthala. The petitioner states that the transfer is illegal. In Ext.P2 transfer order, it is stated that the total workload of Economics Department is 125 hours and nine Teachers are working. Seven Teachers are having 16 hours workload, one Teacher is having 13 hours and the 9th Teacher is continuing without any workload. Pursuant to Ext.P2 transfer order, the petitioner was relieved from NSS Hindu College, Changanassery with effect from 23.09.2023 with instructions to report for duty at the due station, as per Ext.P3.

4. The petitioner states that Ext.P2 order is illegal to the extent it ordered transfer of the petitioner from NSS Hindu College, Changanassery to NSS College, Cherthala. Section 68 of the MG University Act, 1985 provides that where an educational agency has Colleges under the jurisdiction of the Mahatma Gandhi University and also under the jurisdiction of the Kerala University or the Calicut University, the educational agency shall within three months of commencement of this Act or within such period, not exceeding three months, as may be granted by the Government, prepare a seniority list of the Teachers of all such Colleges. Sub-section (4) of Section 68 mandates that where a Teacher is allotted to a University area under the Section, he shall not be transferred to a College affiliated to any other University.

5. It is therefore clear that for effecting inter University transfer, the educational agency shall prepare a seniority list of Teachers and the Teachers have a right to option. Ext.P2 order is therefore unsustainable. In the case of the petitioner, due to the illegal transfer effected, the petitioner became the juniormost Teacher in the seniority list in the Economics Department of NSS College, Cherthala.

6. The 5th respondent-University of Kerala filed a statement. The 5th respondent also relied on Section 64A of the Kerala University Act which provides that transfer shall be made only on the written request of the Teachers who has completed three years of service.

7. The 2nd respondent-Director of Collegiate Education filed a counter affidavit pointing out that the Manager has not relied upon seniority list while effecting inter University transfer. The Manager has not obtained options from Teachers while effecting the inter University transfer. There was unnecessary haste and total violation of relevant provisions of Section 68A of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 and the University Statutes made thereunder.

8. W.P.(C) No.41930/2024 is filed by the Secretary, NSS College Central Committee. The said educational agency submitted that the Government as well as the Universities compelled them to adhere to workload and directed that the Teachers continuing on supernumerary basis shall be redeployed to substantive vacancies having sufficient workload. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.40892/2024 was redeployed to NSS College, Cherthala for the said reason.

9. The counsel for the educational agency submitted that what is effected in respect of the petitioner is only a redeployment to adjust work load and it cannot be treated as transfer.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top