Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court dismissed W.A. No. 1167 of 2025 filed by the Manager of the Catholicate & M.D. Schools and another appellant challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 25395 of 2024. The Division Bench upheld the quashing of the transfer order issued against the writ petitioner (a teacher), holding that:
“When the order of transfer is one made in violation of the statutory provisions contained in sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of Chapter XIVA of KER, we find absolutely no merits in the arguments advanced…”
The Court held that punitive transfers without complying with the principles of natural justice—such as holding an enquiry and allowing rebuttal—cannot be sustained, especially when the transfer order results in civil consequences by casting aspersions on a teacher’s conduct.
Facts
- The writ petitioner was working as an HST (English) at MGM Higher Secondary School, Engapuzha.
- The petitioner challenged Exts. P3, P7, and P10, which transferred him to MPM Higher Secondary School, Chungathara—another school under the same management.
- The Single Judge quashed the orders and directed that the petitioner be retained at MGM School.
- The Manager and the newly appointed teacher who replaced the petitioner (respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition) filed the present writ appeal.
Issues
- Whether the transfer order was issued in accordance with the statutory provisions of Rule 10 of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules (KER), 1959?
- Whether the allegations against the petitioner could justify a transfer without an enquiry?
- Whether the principles of natural justice are mandatory for transfer orders resulting in stigma?
Petitioner’s Arguments (Appellants in the Writ Appeal)
- The transfer was justified on grounds of “administrative interest”.
- Referred to sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of Chapter XIVA KER to argue that unsuitability, lack of cooperation, and similar factors permitted such transfer.
- Placed reliance on Union of India v. Janardhan Debanath [(2004) 4 SCC 245], which held that formal enquiries are not necessary for transfers made in administrative interest.
- Argued that the teacher’s conduct disrupted school administration and warranted his removal.
Respondent’s Arguments (Writ Petitioner)
- Emphasized the statutory requirement under Rule 10(2) of Chapter XIVA of KER, which requires allowing teachers to indicate preference of schools.
- Argued that the transfer was punitive in nature and lacked procedural fairness.
- Cited Corporate Manager v. Beena Hilkushi S.R. [2023 (7) KHC 489], where it was held that transfers under Rule 10(4) must follow principles of natural justice if they are based on allegations of misconduct.
Analysis of the Law
- Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of Chapter XIVA KER allows transfer for administrative reasons such as misconduct, incompetence, etc., but does not override principles of natural justice.
- In Beena Hilkushi S.R., a Division Bench clarified that even if Rule 10(4) does not explicitly require an enquiry, natural justice must be read into it when the transfer entails stigma or punitive consequences.
- The High Court observed that in the present case, the petitioner was labeled uncooperative and divisive, which led to adverse civil consequences without giving him a chance to defend himself.
Precedent Analysis
- Union of India v. Janardhan Debanath (2004) 4 SCC 245: Distinguished. The Supreme Court allowed transfer without enquiry in administrative interest, but the Kerala High Court held it inapplicable when statutory provisions and natural justice principles are violated.
- Corporate Manager v. Beena Hilkushi S.R. [2023 (7) KHC 489]: Followed. Mandates that even under Rule 10(4), if allegations imply misconduct, an enquiry is necessary.
- State of Kerala v. P.K. Radhakrishnan [2023 (7) KHC 24]: Applied. Stressed that principles of natural justice must be read into statutory schemes to prevent prejudice.
- Other citations referred in the appendix, such as:
- Preethi G.V v. Anidarsa K. [2024 (4) KHC 377 DB]
- New Indian Express Employees Association v. State of Kerala [2024 KHC 937]
- State of Kerala v. Kerala Government Veterinary Officers Association [2024 KHC OnLine 852]
- Pubi Lombi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh [2024 KHC OnLine 6135]
Court’s Reasoning
- The transfer was premised on alleged non-cooperation and misconduct.
- The allegations resulted in a stigmatic transfer, which attracts the need for compliance with natural justice.
- There was no enquiry, no opportunity for rebuttal, and no adherence to the mandatory seniority norms under Rule 10.
- Thus, the transfer was not in “administrative exigency” but punitive in nature.
- The order was in clear violation of both statutory provisions and binding precedent.
Conclusion
The writ appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the learned Single Judge was upheld. The petitioner is to be retained at MGM Higher Secondary School, Engapuzha. The Court reiterated:
“The principles of natural justice will have to be read into the statutory provisions to obviate any prejudice or bias that is likely to arise…”
Implications
- School managers under private aided management cannot transfer teachers citing misconduct or poor cooperation without an enquiry.
- Rule 10(4) of Chapter XIVA KER is not a carte blanche for transfers; it must be read with the doctrine of natural justice.
- The decision reaffirms the jurisprudence that transfers causing civil consequences must be procedurally fair.
- Institutions must ensure transparency, seniority consideration, and the right to be heard before effecting adverse service decisions.
