Rajan P.P. vs State of Kerala

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4, 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.

Briefly stated: The petitioner, working as Urdu Language Teacher in a School under the management of the fifth respondent since 1983, has been subjected to transfer through Exhibit P3. The transfer is stated to have been effected based on Exhibit P2 staff fixation order, wherein, the post held by the petitioner was declared surplus.

The grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of Exhibit P1 Government Order, those teachers who got selection grade on completion of twenty three years of service shall not be transferred despite the fact that the post held by them was declared surplus. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court Exhibit P6 interim direction given by this Court on 08.07.2014 in W.P. (C). No. 17346/2014. The learned counsel for the petitioner has sought a similar direction in the present instance too, before the issue could be adjudicated on merits.

The learned Government Pleader, on his part, has opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that in terms of Rule 12E(3) Chapter XXIII of Kerala Education Rules, the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy by way of revision before the second respondent. According to the learned Government Pleader, without availing the said alternative remedy, the petitioner has rushed to this Court. Therefore, he has sought the dismissal of the writ petition at the threshold.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy which is also efficacious. The petitioner in the first place ought to have exhausted the said remedy before seeking public law remedy of this Court. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the second respondent may not entertain his interlocutory application to stay the proceedings before he could adjudicate the issue on merits, I am afraid, that contention cannot be countenanced. As far as adjudicatory power is concerned, a quasi-judicial authority, as in this case, who has the power to determine the issue finally, has also got the incidental powers that are required for the effective adjudication of the issue. In other words, an authority who can interdict a particular order, as well can stay all further proceedings flowing therefrom. Accordingly, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner should approach the second respondent ventilating his grievance.

If the petitioner files a revision before the second respondent within ten days, the second respondent may consider the revision as well as the interlocutory application, if any, filed therewith. In the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to suspend the operation of Exhibit P3 for a limited period, i.e., until the interlocutory application to be filed before the second respondent is decided.

Usually, it is not proper to issue directions in a piece meal manner, more so, when adjudication has been assigned to a statutory authority. It is further not desirable to issue an interim direction concerning which so far no proceedings have been initiated, as yet. At any rate, to preserve the cause being raised by the petitioner, it is desirable to intervene, and accordingly, this Court stays the operation of Exhibit P3 for one month to enable the petitioner to take appropriate steps.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed. No order as to costs.