Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 339 (KER)

Sreela S. v. Ushakumary S. W/o Habeeb A.

2026-03-26

Anil K Narendran, Muralee Krishna S

body2026
JUDGMENT : ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J. 1. The 5 th respondent in O.A.No.551 of 2025 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal at Thiruvananthapuram, has filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P5 order dated 02.03.2026 of the Tribunal in that original petition, which was one filed by the 1 st respondent herein- applicant, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking an order to set aside Annexure A2 order dated 15.10.2024 issued by the 2 nd respondent Director of General Education, Annexure A16 report dated 09.10.2024 submitted by the 3 rd respondent Deputy Director of Education, and Annexure A19 Government order dated 24.02.2025, whereby Annexure A4 appeal dated 16.10.2024 submitted by the applicant stands rejected; to set aside Annexure A3 order dated 15.10.2024 issued by the 2 nd respondent to the extent it grants posting to the 4 th respondent as Headmistress at Government Higher Secondary School, Kulasekharapuram; a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to grant posting to the applicant as Headmistress at Government Higher Secondary School, Kulasekharapuram, by recalling Annexure A2 order; and a declaration that the action of the 3 rd respondent in having recommended the transfer of the applicant, based on a complaint, without notice to her, is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable. 2. By Ext.P5 order dated 02.03.2026, the Tribunal allowed O.A.No.551 of 2025. Paragraphs 15 to 17 and also the last paragraph of that order read thus: “15. Matter relates to transfer of Headmistress of a Government School from Kulashekharapuram to Perinad. The applicant joined the school on 15.06.2024 and she was transferred on 15.10.2024. The order of transfer, Annexure-A2 shows that same was issued on the recommendation of Deputy Director of Education. A letter dated 09.10.2024 is also referred by the DDE in Annexure- A2. Against Annexure-A2, the applicant filed an appeal which was considered by the Government and rejected by Annexure-A19. Applicant is challenging Annexure-A2 as well as Annexure-A19 order rejecting the appeal filed against transfer. It is beyond dispute that the applicant had completed hardly 4 months in the School. Whether that is a sufficient time to assess the performance of a Headmistress, is a matter to be considered. The report referred in Annexure-A2 is Annexure-A16. Applicant is challenging Annexure-A2 as well as Annexure-A19 order rejecting the appeal filed against transfer. It is beyond dispute that the applicant had completed hardly 4 months in the School. Whether that is a sufficient time to assess the performance of a Headmistress, is a matter to be considered. The report referred in Annexure-A2 is Annexure-A16. The DDE has stated that he had visited the School to enquire about the complaint received and that he had examined the Attendance Registers and other documents. There is nothing in the report which shows that the statements of any of the teachers were taken in the meeting. The complaint was levelled against the applicant, but the DDE has not taken the statement of the applicant and she was not even given a copy of the complaint. In Annexure-A6, the DDE is found to have arrived at 4 conclusions. It is stated that applicant has failed to take action on instances when the staff had taken excess leave and this was not brought to the notice of higher officers. It is further stated that due to lack of leadership qualities, there is lack of unity among the teachers and this had reflected in the activities of the School and this is the same in academic activities as well. There is the division between the teachers as senior and junior. Thus it was found that the Headmistress had not taken any effort to solve the issues in the School through an open discussion. She is not able to bring all the teachers together and to manage the affairs of the School. After finding that the teacher lacks leadership qualities and that due to the laches from her part, the School has gone far behind from its earlier position in academic and non-academic matters, the teacher was transferred to another School. There is merit in the contention of the applicant that there was a hurry in conducting the enquiry and in transferring the applicant. The complaint was received by the DDE on 18.09.2024. It is stated that oral instructions were given on 22.09.2024 to conduct enquiry. On 09.10.2024 itself, the DDE submitted the report and on 13.10.2024, official letter was issued to conduct enquiry and to file report and on 15.10.2024 itself applicant was transferred. The complaint was received by the DDE on 18.09.2024. It is stated that oral instructions were given on 22.09.2024 to conduct enquiry. On 09.10.2024 itself, the DDE submitted the report and on 13.10.2024, official letter was issued to conduct enquiry and to file report and on 15.10.2024 itself applicant was transferred. The applicant has produced sufficient evidence to show that the DDE had attended the school on higher level education as is evident from Annexure-A20. He had examined the registers on 27.09.2024 in order to do the higher level verification and he had done the physical verification as well. He had also convened a meeting of the teachers and the Headmistress. There is nothing in Annexure-A20 to show that he had conducted any kind of enquiry on the complaint. There is nothing on record to show that what kind of irregularities he had noticed in the attendance as the main allegation pertains to the leave granted to a section of the teachers. As part of the higher level verification he convened a staff meeting and examined the school registers and submitted the report on 09.10.2024 is the contention raised by the applicant and this court finds merit in that. 16. it is the prerogative of the employer especially the Government to transfer a teacher from one school to another on administrative reasons. There is nothing on record to show that there was total disharmony in the school or that the Headmistress was not in good terms with the major section of the teachers. Alleging lack of leadership quality, the teacher is transferred from one school to another, when there is nothing on evidence to show the lack of leadership qualities. In Annexure-A19 order the Government have also failed to examine the issue in its proper perspective. The Government found that there was no merit in the complaint that the applicant had interfered with the appointment of Senior Assistants. But the Government continued to accept the allegation that in the case of granting leave and in the matter of conduct of examination there were lapses from the part of the applicant. The Government has drawn the above conclusion without any material. The applicant has produced several statements along with the argument notes which includes a statement of the PTA President. It was open to the Government to issue notice to those persons who had filed statements in support of the applicant. The Government has drawn the above conclusion without any material. The applicant has produced several statements along with the argument notes which includes a statement of the PTA President. It was open to the Government to issue notice to those persons who had filed statements in support of the applicant. The genuineness of the above documents could have been asserted by a proper hearing. But instead without looking into any of the relevant materials, the Government rejected the appeal filed by the applicant against Annexure-A2 transfer order. This court finds that the above governmental action is highly arbitrary and illegal. 17. Accordingly Annexures-A2, A3, A16 and A19 are set aside. The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to grant posting to the applicant as Headmistress at Government Higher Secondary School, Kulashekharapuram, within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 3. On 17.03.2026, when this original petition came up for admission, this Court issued notice on admission by special messenger to the 5 th respondent. The learned counsel took notice on admission for the 1 st respondent-applicant and the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 2 to 4. 4. Today, when this original petition is taken up for consideration, the 5 th respondent enters appearance through counsel. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo dated 20.03.2026 seeking permission to withdraw this original petition. The said memo reads thus: “It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner is not intending to prosecute the above O.P.(KAT)No.84 of 2026. In the above circumstances, the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to withdraw the above O.P.(KAT) with liberty to file a fresh O.P.(KAT), in case it is so advised.” 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner-5 th respondent would submit that, as stated in the memo dated 20.03.2026, the petitioner is not intending to prosecute this original petition and therefore, the same may be dismissed as withdrawn. Based on the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-5 th respondent, this original petition is dismissed as withdrawn, without expressing anything on the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides.