Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, a Professor and Head of Department, working in the respondent University, has been subjected to transfer through Ext.P6, essentially on the recommendation of the Executive committee of the University, which in fact enquired into certain allegations against the petitioner and recommended his transfer, pending further proceedings.
3. The petitioner filed the writ petition assailing Ext.P6 on various grounds. Joining the issue, the respondent University filed its counter contending that the very writ petition is not maintainable, in as much as on an earlier application the W.P.(C) No.26434 of 2014 2 petitioner sought the same releif, but this Court rejected it through Ext.P1 judgment. In view of the disposal of the writ petition at the preliminary stage, more particularly, without entering into the merits of the matter, it is not appropriate for the Court to determine the issue either as to the maintainability or as to the justifiability of Ext.P6.
4. After much acrimony, there is thawing of things.
Though the petitioner has insisted that the action of the respondent authorities subjecting him to transfer is illegal, it nevertheless emerges that through Ext.R1(c), he himself sought a transfer, if it is inevitable, to Vellayani at Thiruvananthapuram, which is nearer to his home town.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University has submitted that the Executive Committee of the University is stated to meet on 04.11.2014 and in all likelihood it would be considering Ext.R1(c) request of the petitioner positively.
6. When the learned counsel for the petitioner sought an interim direction, innocuous as the request may be, that there may be a judicial directive in that regard to consider the W.P.(C) No.26434 of 2014 3 petitioner's Ext.R1(c) request, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that it would lead to further complication.
7. To the credit of the learned Standing Counsel it must be stated that, instead of fighting the issue on technicalities, he has suggested an alternative practical course of action to the effect that pending the meeting of the Executive committee, the Vice Chancellor of the University may as well exercise his powers to consider Ext.R1(c) and pass appropriate orders thereon, subject to the ratification by the Executive Committee.
8. Accordingly, it is observed that the Vice Chancellor of the respondent University may consider Ext.R1(c) request of the petitioner positively and pass appropriate orders thereon, subject to the ratification of the Executive Committee to be held on 04.11.2014 or on any other date.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE
sj