IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2656 of 2009(N)
1. FIDY MATHEW,W/O.SONNY KURIAN,AGED 48,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JESSY YOYAK,O/O.THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM),K.S.E.B,
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,DISTRIBUTION CENTRAL,
4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,K.S.E.B,
5. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
For Petitioner :SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI
For Respondent :SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :06/02/2009
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No.2656 of 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 6th February,2009
J U D G M E N T
Aggrieved by the frequent transfers being made by
the respondents, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
She is working as Assistant Administrative Officer in the
office of the Chief Engineer, Distribution Cell, Ernakulam
from 31.12.1988. She was transferred as such by
Exhibit-P2 order. She was working prior to her transfer
at Kozhikode. Petitioner joined duty at Ernakulam on
6.1.2009. By Exhibit-P3 dated 12.1.2009 she was again
transferred to the office at Perumbavoor. This is under
challenge in this writ petition. In the place of the
petitioner, the 1st respondent has been posted at
Ernakulam.
2. Learned standing counsel has filed a statement
on behalf of the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that the
petitioner was promoted and posted as Assistant Accounts
Officer in the office of the Chief Engineer (Distribution-
W.P ( C) No.2656 of 2009
2
North), Kozhikode as per order dated 17.6.2008.
Considering her request, she was transferred back as per
Exhibit-P2. First respondent had submitted a
representation dated 26.8.2008 while she was working as
Assistant Accounts Officer, Electrical Circle, Tirur seeking
for a transfer to Ernakulam. In the representation she
had stated that she is a chronic diabetic patient and she is
also suffering from Neuro related complications. Second
respondent therefore submits that when the petitioner was
posted at Ernakulam this request could not be considered
and only to remedy the situation the 1st respondent was
transferred back to Ernakulam. It is pointed out that there
are no malafides in the order that is issued.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a
reply affidavit, wherein, Exhibit-P6 has been produced to
show that the 1st respondent was promoted only by an
order dated 31.7.2008 and therefore there could not have
been a request for a transfer back to Ernakulam prior to
that.
W.P ( C) No.2656 of 2009
3
4. Learned standing counsel produced before me
for perusal a representation submitted by the 1st
respondent which is dated 26.8.2008 wherein anticipating
the promotion, she has sought for a posting in Ernakulam.
Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any irregularity
in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that if any further vacancy arises in Ernakulam,
the claim of the petitioner may be considered.
5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of in the
following terms.
Petitioner’s request for a transfer to Ernakulam will
be considered in the next arising vacancy. Exhibit-P3 order
of transfer is not thus interfered with.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) No.2656 of 2009
4
W.P ( C) No.2656 of 2009
5