IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 549 of 2010()
1. KARUNAKARAN A.S.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. AMBIKA M.P., W/O K.MOHANAN,
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :29/03/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMAN &
P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ.
= = = = = = = = == = = =
W.A. No. 549 OF 2010
= = = = = = = = == = = = =
DATED THIS, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
Raman, J.
Appellant is the third respondent in the writ petition. The writ
petitioner, first respondent herein was transferred to Puzhakkal Road
Section in Thrissur District where the appellant was working and he was
transferred to Roads and Buildings, Central Circle, Aluva. Thus, it was a
mutual transfer. Challenging the reason for transfer, the writ petition was
filed, as not one based on any administrative procedures.
2. Learned Single Judge held that the Government has discretion in
the matter of transferring the employees in public interest and also on such
other legally permissible grounds, without considering guidelines issued,
with a view to have a uniform policy of transfer and to avert arbitrariness. It
was noticed that the appellant had only two years and 14 months service in
Puzhakkal in Thrissur District whereas the first respondent has completed
more than three years at Roads and Buildings, Central Circle, Aluva. In
para 7 of the judgment, learned Single Judge has recorded the submission
on behalf of the writ petitioner / first respondent that he is not pressing for
W.A. 549/2010 2
interference with the transfer of the appellant herein and that deferring
implementation of Ext.P1 till the end of the academic year to the extent it
relates the writ petitioner and the appellant, would be sufficient to safeguard
the future of her daughter who is studying in VIIIth standard. The learned
Single Judge has also took notice of the fact that the writ petitioner/first
respondent had already applied for considering her claim for transfer during
general transfer and she is continuing in the Roads and Buildings, Central
Circle, Aluva, based on the interim order passed on 11.2.2010. Taking into
consideration of the above facts, the second respondent herein was directed
to defer implementation of Ext.P1 to the extent it relates the first respondent
and the appellant till 31.3.2010. That is the only relief granted. The time
fixed in the judgment will be over by day after tomorrow. Since the relief
couched based on the limited prayer made in the writ petition, we do not
think the apprehension of the appellant that despite the limited prayer
granted by this court, Government may interfere in the transfer because of
the observation that the power to make transfer on compassionate ground is
on Government and not on the Chief Engineer. The learned Government
Pleader appearing on behalf of the State submitted that as far as the writ
appeal is considered, there is no such move to disturb him. This submission
W.A. 549/2010 3
is recorded. The writ appeal, in such circumstances, is devoid of any merit.
It is accordingly dismissed.
P.R. RAMAN,
(JUDGE)
P.N. RAVINDRAN,
(JUDGE)
KNC/-