Raveendran.P vs State Of Kerala on 15 December, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 36261 of 2009(C)



1. RAVEENDRAN.P
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :15/12/2009

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                     ================
                 W.P.(C) NO. 36261 OF 2009 (C)
                 =====================

          Dated this the 15th day of December, 2009

                          J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is an Assistant Engineer in the Road Section,

Kanhangad. By Ext.P1 order, he has been transferred to Special

Buildings Section No.2, Kasargod and the 3rd respondent has been

posted from Kasargode to his place.

2. Petitioner has no case that he has not completed the

required tenure and is not liable for transfer. The main ground

that is urged is relying on Rule 9(d) of Part II, KS&SSR. According

to the petitioner, 3rd respondent’s promotion was an out of turn

promotion in a linguistic minority area of Kasargod and therefore

unless he is retained at Kasargod, purpose of such out of turn

promotion will be defeated. In my view, even if there is substance

in this plea, such a plea can be raised not by the petitioner, but by

the 3rd respondent, and therefore, the petitioner cannot resist his

transfer relying on Rule 9(d) of Part II, KS & SSR.

3. This court can interfere with an order of transfer if

malafides are made out or if it is against the conditions of service

of the employees or in a case where the order has been issued by

WPC 36261/09
:2 :

an authority incompetent for the same. None of these grounds

could be made out in this writ petition and therefore this Court

will not be justified in interfering with Ext.P1 order transferring the

petitioner and posting the 3rd respondent at his place.

4. Be that as it may, since petitioner seeks

reconsideration of the order of transfer, I leave it open to the

petitioner to move the 2nd respondent. Therefore, it is directed

that if the petitioner files an application before the 2nd respondent,

the 2nd respondent shall consider his grievance and deal with the

same.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp