IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE &

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 4TH BHADRA, 1942 WA.No.1139 OF 2020 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.8.2020 IN WP(C) 518/2020(L) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE CORPORATE MANAGER CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, ARCH DIOCESE OF THALASSERY, SANDESH BHAVAN, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN-670 101 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:

1 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR , THANA P.O., KANNUR,PIN-670 002 3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN-670 141 BY SMT. RAJI. T. BHASKAR-G.P.

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 26^th day of August 2020 Shaffique, J This appeal is filed by the Corporate Manager challenging the judgment dated 10.8.2020 in W.P.(C).No.518/2020. The writ petition was filed challenging an order passed by the District Educational Officer (DEO) refusing to approve the transfers effected by the Corporate Manager in different schools. 24 persons in the Corporate Managements schools were transferred. By Ext.P5 order dated 27.12.2019, the DEO approved transfer of Sl.Nos. 1 to 12 on the ground that it was a mutual transfer. Transfer of Sl.Nos. 13 to 24 was not approved on the ground that the transfers were to fill up retirement vacancies.

2. Learned Single Judge having considered the aforesaid matter formed an opinion that though the Corporate Manager had the power to transfer the staff and teachers from one school to another, insofar as the transfers were effected against the mandate in Rule 7 (3) (a) of Chapter XXI KER, the DEO was justified in not approving the transfer and not paying the salary.

3. While impugning the aforesaid judgment, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submits that Rule 7 (3) (a) of Chapter XXI KER has no application to the matter relating to transfer, whereas the provision that applies is Rule 10 of Chapter XIV A of KER.

4. Learned Government Pleader however submitted that if there is non compliance of Rule 7 (3) (a), the Manager could not have filled up any of the vacancies that had arisen on account of retirement of teachers.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader, the question to be considered is whether for effecting transfers in the Corporate Management schools, should the Manager comply with Rule 7 (3) (a) of Chapter XXI of the KER.

6. Rule 10 of Chapter XIV A of the KER reads as under:

“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:- xxxxxxxxx”

There is no dispute about the fact that the Manager of a Corporate Management is entitled to transfer a teacher from one school to another. Government does not have a case that the order of transfer was in any way contrary to the conditions stated under Rule 10.

7. Rule 7 (3) (a) of Chapter XXI of the KER reads as under:

“(3) (a) Subject to rules 43, 51A and 51B of Chapter XIV A, in the schools opened or upgraded during the period from 22^nd May, 1979 to 28^th January, 2016, except in the pre-upgraded section, in addition to the additional posts or vacancies earmarked for appointing protected hands in terms of sub rules (1), (2) and (4), one among the existing or arising regular vacancies of teachers or non teaching staff shall also be filled up by the Manager by appointing a protected hand from the Teachers Bank with permission of the Deputy Director, Education concerned.”

Rule 7 (3) (a) applies to instances where vacancie