The petitioner, a post graduate degree holder in Philosophy with M.Phil was appointed as Assistant Project Co-ordinator on contract basis in Malappuram District under the Kerala State Literacy Mission as per order dated 2.6.1999. Later she was appointed as District Project Co-ordinator and transferred to Palakkad District. In the year 2009, at her request she was transferred and posted as District Project Co- ordinator at Kozhikkode. Consequently, the third respondent herein was transfered and posted as District Project Co-ordinator at Palakkad. While matters stood thus, by Ext.P1 order dated 16.1.2014 the Director of Kerala State Literacy Mission, mutually transferred the petitioner and the third respondent. The petitioner thereupon filed W.P.(C) No.2194 of 2014 in this Court. The main ground raised in the writ petition was that the petitioner's husband is working in Calicut University and their marriage is an inter-caste marriage and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be retained at Kozhikkode. 2. When W.P.(C) No.2194 of 2014 came up for hearing, the third respondent herein, who got himself impleaded as the additional third respondent, contended that he is also aggrieved by the order of transfer. Taking note of the submissions of both sides and the admitted fact that the order of transfer had not taken effect till then, a learned single Judge of this Court disposed of W.P.(C) No.2194 of 2014 by judgment delivered on 3.2.2014 with a direction to the Director of the Kerala State Literacy Mission to consider the matter, if necessary after affording the petitioner and the third respondent an opportunity of being heard. This Court also directed till a decision is taken as directed by this Court, implementation of the order of transfer in so far as it relates to the petitioner and the third respondent shall be kept in abeyance.
3. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 10.2.2014 before the Director of the Kerala State Literacy Mission. The third respondent herein submitted a representation dated 12.2.2014 objecting to his transfer to Kozhikkode. The Director, after hearing the submissions of both sides rejected both the representations and by Ext.P4 order dated 20.2.2014, he directed the third respondent to be relieved of his duties at Palakkad and to join duty at Kozhikkode. The petitioner was also likewise directed to join duty at Palakkad. Exts.P1 and P4 are under challenge in this writ petition wherein the petitioner seeks the following directions:
i. issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction to quash Exts.P1 and P4.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding and compelling the respondents to retain the petitioner in Kozhikode itself
iii. Declare that the action of the 2nd respondent in mutually transferring the petitioner and the 3rd respondent without their consent and in the absence of any request from the parties concerned it is highly unjust and illegal.
4. The main ground raised in the instant writ petition is that the reference to administrative conveyance is only a ruse to transfer the petitioner and the third respondent, that the order of transfer will affect programmes which have already commenced at Palakkad and Kozhikkode, that the third respondent has expertize in the filed of spreading literacy among tribals in Attappadi and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the transfer is on account of administrative conveyance.
5. A statement dated 25.5.2014 has been filed on behalf of the second respondent. Relying on Ext.R2(c) resolution adopted by the Koduvally Block Panchayat and Ext.R2(d) memo dated 5.11.2012 issued by the Director, it is contended that if the petitioner is retained at Kozhikkode it will adversely affect the literacy programmes on account of non co-operation of the local bodies and office staff. It is also contended that the order of transfer has taken effect with the third respondent joining duty as District Project Co-ordinator at Kozhikkode on 24.2.2014 and the petitioner joining duty at Palakkad on 26.4.2014, that contract employees like the petitioner and the third respondent are liable to be work any where in Kerala and that contract employees cannot claim protection from transfer granted to Government employees who have entered in to an inter-caste marriage.
6. I heard Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.M.A.Fayaz, learned Government Pleader appearing for the State of Kerala, Sri.V.A.Muhammed, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and Sri.Jeswin P.Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. It is evident from the stand taken by the third respondent in this Court in the earlier round of litigation and before the Director himself that he is also aggrieved by the transfer from Palakkad to Kozhikkode. Apart from stating that the transfer of the petitioner and the third respondent is ordered for administrative convenience, what the administrative convenience is not set out either in the order of transfer or in the counter affidavit. On the other hand, a reading of the counter affidavit would disclose that the petitioner's request for canceling the transfer was declined having regard to the contents of Ext.R2(c) resolution adopted by Koduvally Block Panchayat on 6.8.2012 and the memo dated 5.11.2012 issued to the petitioner by the Director. Ext.R2(c) discloses that Koduvally Block Panchayat had passed a resolution on 6.8.2012 to the effect that the petitioner had recommended grant of an award to Sri.Chandran Velamgode who had been placed under suspension by Koduvally Block Panchayat and that it amounts to ridiculing the members of the Block Panchayat. Ext.R2(d) memo is one issued by the Director to the petitioner for the reason that her subordinates had not signed the attendance register. He has however noticed therein that the petitioner regularly signs the attendance register but the Assistant Co-ordinator and the Assistants are not regular in marking their attendance. In my opinion, the Director should have issued memos to the persons who had not signed the attendance register and initiated disciplinary action against them. It is evident from the contents of Ext.R2(c) resolution and Ext.R2(d) memo that the transfer of the petitioner back to Kozhikkode has been declined, though she was prompt in the discharge of her duties, on extraneous considerations. It is evident from the proceedings of the Director that even at the time of hearing, pursuant to the order of this Court, the third respondent had submitted that he is also aggrieved by the order of transfer. However the Director has not, in the impugned order, referred to the grounds put forward by the third respondent to oppose the transfer. He has only considered the grievances voiced by the petitioner and over ruled them on the ground that the benefits claimed by her are not applicable to contract workers.
7. In view of the admitted fact that the petitioner's husband is an employee of the Calicut University and their marriage is an inter-caste marriage notwithstanding the fact that she is a contract employee, the petitioner is in my opinion entitled to the protection available to Government employees who have entered into an inter-caste marriage. If for all other purposes the petitioner is treated as a Government employee amenable to the control of the Government, I find no reason why in the matter of immunity from transfer, the benefits flowing from orders governing transfer of Government employees cannot be extended to the petitioner. The Director has by the impugned order virtually disabled the petitioner from claiming benefits thereunder. I am therefore of the considered opinion that Exts.P1 and P4 orders are liable to be quashed.
I accordingly allow the writ petition, set aside Ext.P1 order of transfer as also Ext.P4 order and direct the second respondent to forthwith transfer the petitioner to Kozhikkode and the third respondent to Palakkad.
rkc.
Sd/-
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.