IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 764 of 2007(N)
1. DR.P.P.KANARAN, AGED 45 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY,
3. DR.M.G.RAJAN, SENIOR VETERINARY
For Petitioner :SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM
For Respondent :SRI.A.ANILKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN
Dated :19/02/2007
O R D E R
K.K.DENESAN, J
-----------------------------------------
W.P.(C)NO. 764 of 2007
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of February, 2007
JUDGMENT
The petitioner and the third respondent are Senior
Veterinary Surgeons in the Animal Husbandry Department. The
challenge is to Ext.P1 order passed by the Government to the
extent it concerns the petitioner and the third respondent.
2. As per Ext.P1, Government promoted Senior Veterinary
Surgeons numbering 25 to the higher post of Assistant Directors.
Simultaneously, as many as 110 Senior Veterinary Surgeons
were transferred from one Veterinary Hospital to the other. The
petitioner is shown against Sl.No.37 and the third respondent is
shown against Sl.No.36. As per this order, the petitioner has
been transferred from District Veterinary Centre, Kozhikode to
Veterinary Hospital, Kodencherry in Kozhikode District. The third
respondent has been transferred from Veterinary Hospital,
Kodenchery to the District Veterinary Centre, Kozhikode.
W.P.(C)No.764/2007 :2:
3. The contentions of the petitioner are the following:
The petitioner had the opportunity to work as Senior
Veterinary Surgeon only for a period of six months and that the
present order of transfer is pre-mature as he has not been given
the chance to work as Senior Veterinary Surgeon, District
Veterinary Hospital for a minimum period of three years. He is a
permanent resident of Kozhikode Town and the order of transfer
will cause undue hardship to him. The third respondent is the
office bearer of a service organisation which owes allegiance to
one of the ruling parties and that the petitioner has been
disturbed to give accommodation to the third respondent to a
place of his choice. The transfer order is therefore malafide.
4. In the affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, it
is contended that the transfer of the petitioner is not isolated
one. Transfers became necessary consequent on promotions of
senior hands. The third respondent is not even a member of the
service orgnaisation which is referred to in the writ petition. The
third respondent, by virtue of his better experience in the clinical
and non-clinical side of the Veterinary Centre, was found to be a
W.P.(C)No.764/2007 :3:
person more suitable to carry out the duties in the District
Veterinary Hospital and that no favouritism was shown to the
third respondent, as alleged by the petitioner.
5. The third respondent has not entered appearance.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
respondents are not right in stating that the third respondent
has got greater experience on the clinical as well as non-clinical
side. In the reply affidavit, it is asserted that the petitioner too
has served both the institutions, that is to say, clinical and non-
clinical, and is having sufficient experience. It is also stated that
going by the date of appointment, the petitioner is senior.
7. As far as transfers and postings are concerned, seniority
need not necessarily be a criterion. What is relevant is the
exigencies of service. Though the petitioner also might have
served on the clinical as well as non-clinical side, the choice shall
be left to the Departmental authorities to utilise the services of
the better experienced and the more competent in the District
Centre. This Court will not weigh the comparative merit of the
officers concerned or their length of experience in golden scales
W.P.(C)No.764/2007 :4:
in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
8. Having gone through the pleadings in the writ petition, I
find that there is no scope for any interference. The order
transferring the petitioner and the third respondent is not an
isolated one. Transfer and posting of the third respondent forms
a part of the general order of transfers and postings numbering
more than hundred doctors. The contention of the petitioner that
respondent No.3 is an office bearer or the Secretary of the
Gazetted Officers Association is evidently incorrect. When the
respondents denied the averment that the third respondent is the
office bearer of Gazetted Officers Association, the petitioner has
corrected that mistake in the reply affidavit saying that the
name of the organisation is Kerala Gazetted Officers Federation.
The above averments made in the writ petition, the counter
affidavit and the reply affidavit would go to show that there is no
substance in the allegation of malafides because the petitioner
did not even have a clear idea about the organisation to which
the third respondent belonged. The allegation that the Gazetted
W.P.(C)No.764/2007 :5:
Officers Association has got a link with the Communist Party of
India has to be understood only in the background of the above
allegations. When the fact situation, as revealed from the reply
affidavit of the petitioner, is that the third respondent was an
office bearer of the Kerala Gazetted Officers Federation, the
allegation that the third respondent being the office bearer of the
Gazetted Officers Association which owes allegiance to one of the
ruling parties, is baseless. Therefore, the allegation of malafides
falls to the ground. Then, there remains only the contention that
the petitioner’s transfer is pre-mature. Going by the prescribed
norms of transfer, an officer can be allowed to continue for a
period of three years in the same station, but this is not a
mandatory condition. Transfers before completion of three years
may become necessary. Such orders will have to be sustained in
public interest and exigencies of service. Even assuming that
there was not much need to disturb the petitioner when he
completed only six months period, it is trite that this Court will
not enforce under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. the
guidelines prescribed as transfer norms by the Government, I
W.P.(C)No.764/2007 :6:
think, the petitioner can move the Government, if so advised. He
has already done so as per Ext.P2. The first respondent has the
power and discretion to consider the hardships and
inconveniences highlighted by the petitioner and to give him a
reposting as and when suitable vacancy arises either in
Kozhikode Town or in a nearby place.
With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed.
K.K.DENESAN, JUDGE
css
/
W.P.(C)No.764/2007 :7: