The rejection of a transfer request based on the timing during the academic year should not be a sole ground for non-consideration, and all transfer applications should be considered individually on merits.

1. Mr. T.S. Mohamed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents and by consent of both the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No,.5356/C4/E1/2015 dated 12.03.2015 quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents 2, 3 and 5 herein to transfer him in any one of the existing vacancies in the post of Block Resource Teacher Educator in Thovalai Block and Thiruvattar Block in Kanyakumari District under the control of the third respondent and in the Manur Block, Tirunelveli District under the control of the fifth respondent herein, before the general counselling in June 2015.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner, who was appointed as Block Resource Teacher Educator(Mathematics)2010 was initially working at Tirunelveli. Thereafter, she was deployed to Thiruvarur Block Resource Centre by the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 16.06.2014 and immediately thereafter, she was transferred to Needamangalam in June 2014. In obedience of the order she joined there and started her work. The petitioner, on an earlier occasion, approached this Court by filing W.P.(MD)No. 20071 of 2014, stating that there are existing vacancies in Thovalai Block in Thiruvattar Block in Kanyakumari District. When the said writ petition was taken up for hearing, on 06.12.2014, the learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions submitted before this Court on that the case of the petitioner will be considered if a direction is given by this Court in this regard.

5. Recording the said submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader therein, direction was issued by this Court to consider the request of the petitioner, pursuant to which, her request was considered by the second respondent and subsequently, her request was declined by the second respondent vide proceedings dated 12.03.2015, on the ground that during the middle of the academic year, the request for transfer cannot be entertained as the students are going to take up the final examinations. It has been further stated that similar requests have also been received from several teachers, seeking deployment at therein own choice and the same are pending with the second respondent. In the event of considering the petitioner's case favorably, it would amount to opening the Pandora's box and several applications would come with the similar request. It has also been stated that in the interest of the smooth functioning of administration the request to post the petitioner in any one of the places, cannot be processed at this stage.

6. The stand taken by the second respondent for rejection of the request of the petitioner that several applications are pending with them in this discipline, cannot be construed as a good ground for non consideration of the request of the petitioner, because, in case of receipt of number of applications from other teachers for transfer, all the applications have necessarily to be considered individually on merits and suitable orders to be passed thereon.

7. In this case, the petitioner's grievance has been rejected on the ground that no application should be entertained during the middle of the current academic year, as the students will be affected. Interference by this Court in matter relating to deployment/transfer is very minimal, as this Court has got no power to interfere with the affairs of the administration of the respondents, unless there is perversity or mala fide on the side of the respondents.

8. Considering the fact that since the petitioner's request has been rejected mainly on the ground that her case could not be considered during the midd