Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 31232
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ALEXANDER THOMAS, C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ
JOSHI MATHEW, – Appellant
Versus
THE DIRECTOR, – Respondent
OP(KAT) 294 2023
P.M.JOSEPH R.S.HARI KUMAR SIBY MATHEW, KRISHNA T C, P.RAMAKRISHNAN, PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN, C.ANIL KUMAR, ASHA K.SHENOY, PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE, ASHA S.V, GOKUL KRISHNA, B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL
Administrative transfers are governed by principles such as seniority and vacancy, allowing discretion within prescribed norms without judicial interference unless a clear violation occurs.
Headnote:
Transfer - Administrative Law - [Not Explicitly Stated] - The decision addresses the legality of administrative transfers in the context of service norms, establishing criteria for transfer based on seniority and existing vacancies, ultimately affirming the Tribunal's decision in dismissing the applicant's claim.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, a Trade Instructor, sought a transfer to preferred institutions after being assigned to a location 120 km away. Despite his objections, the Tribunal upheld the transfer based on vacancy and seniority considerations.
Finding of the Court:
The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, stating there was no illegality in the transfer process as the authorities provided justifiable reasons for their decisions, including rank and service duration.
Issues: The primary issue concerns the legitimacy of the transfer, considering the criteria for prioritizing applicants based on seniority, outstation service, and available vacancies.
Ratio Decidendi: Establishing that administrative transfers must adhere to stipulated norms while considering seniority and vacancy is essential; the court declined to intervene in the administrative discretion exercised.
Final Decision: The application for transfer was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
C.Jayachandran, J.
The applicant in O.A.No.1516/2022 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram is the appellant herein. He is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 07.02.2023 in the Original Application above referred, which dismissed his claim for transfer to a place of his choice.
2. The facts:
The applicant is working as Trade Instructor (Grade-II) in Carpentry at Government Technical High School (GTHS for short), Theekoy, Kottayam, which is an office under the 1st respondent Director of Technical Education. He is residing at Ullala, Vaikom with his family and had completed three years service in the present station. Applications were invited online vide Annexure-A1 dated 25.05.2022 in connection with General Transfer, 2022. The petitioner/applicant indicated his preferred choice in the following order:
i) Technical High School, Elanji ii) Government Polytechnic College, Cherthala iii) Government Polytechnic College, Kaduthuruthy iv) Technical High School, Kadaplamattom
3. However, sidelining his claim for transfer to any of the afore referred centres, he was transferred to the Technical High School, Krishnapuram as per Annexure-A2 provisional transfer order. According to the petitioner, he has to travel 120 kms to reach Krishnapuram from his place of residence at Vaikom. Both his parents are aged more than 80 years and his father requires frequent hospitalisation. His children, being twins, are aged only 10 years. On such premise, the petitioner preferred Annexure-A3 objection dated 22.07.2022 to Annexure-A2 provisional transfer order dated 17.07.2022.
4. Vide Annexure-A5 order, the Kerala Administrative Tribunal passed orders in O.A.No.1439/2022 preferred by the petitioner directing the respondent authorities to consider Annexure-A3 objection of the petitioner, before finalising the General Transfer order. However, in disregard of Annexure-A3 objection and Annexure-A5 order of the Tribunal, the 1st respondent Director issued Annexure-A6 final transfer order, confirming the proposal to transfer the petitioner to Krishnapuram. The petitioner also seriously assailed the transfer afforded to the 6th respondent, who had not even completed one year service in the present station. According to the petitioner, he could not have accessed SPARK, through which online applications are to be lodged, for not satisfying the pre-condition of completing three years in a particular station to seek transfer. On such premise, the petitioner preferred the subject Original Application seeking transfer to any of the four centres specified above, as also to cancel the transfer given to the 6th respondent.
5. The 1st respondent Director of Technical Education filed a reply statement explaining the factual position in respect of four centres chosen by the petitioner for transfer, thereby seeking to sustain Annexure-A6 final transfer order. As regards the first option namely, Technical High School, Elanji, the reply affidavit explained that Sri.Sajikumar K.K./the 4th respondent was considered for the reason that he was holding the 13th position of the ranked list, as against the 31st position held by the applicant/petitioner. His outstation service of 1549 days, a relevant criteria for grant of priority in the matter of transfer, was also reckoned. As regards the 2nd and 3rd options at the Government Polytechnic Colleges at Cherthala and Kaduthuruthy, there was no vacancy available, since the incumbents working in these stations have not completed three years of service. As regards the 4th and last option at Technical High School, Kadaplamattom, Sri.Rajan K.S./6th respondent was considered, since he belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and also for the reason that he is senior to the applicant, at rank position no.18. The 1st respondent further contended that any number of options can be given in the transfer application as per Annexure-R1(b) G.O dated 05.04.2018. However, the applicant remain contended with opting for
