IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25680 of 2010(H)
1. M.K.KUTTYKRISHNAN, EXCISE GUARD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
3. DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
4. DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :18/08/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.25680 OF 2010(H)
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of August, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner joined service as Excise Guard in Wayanad
District.
2. He applied for transfer to Kannur District. That was
allowed by Ext.P8. Subsequently, when he claimed seniority in
the transferred unit, the matter was considered and finally by
Ext.P9 it was informed that his transfer was on condition that he
will be the junior most Excise Guard in Knanur Division and
therefore he will be treated as junior most. On that basis his
claim for original seniority was rejected. This order was
challenged in O.P.No.16800/96. That Original Petition was
disposed of by Ext.P11 judgment. Dealing with the claim of the
petitioner that being the near relative of a Jawan, his seniority
shall not be retained, this court held in ExtP15 judgment as
follows
“After the issuance of Ext.P15, an inter-district
transferee, even if he is a near relative of a serving
jawan will loose his seniority upon transfer. Therefore I
find nothing illegal with Ext.P10 or Ext.P14.”
WPC.No. 25680/2010
:2 :
3. Thus after rejecting the case of the petitioner for
seniority, this court held that if the petitioner file a representation
claiming transfer back to Wayanad District, the first respondent
shall consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law,
within 2 months from the date of production of a copy of the
judgment. Petitioner states that accordingly he submitted Ext.P11
representation seeking cancellation of the inter-district transfer
and asking re-transfer to Wayanad District. That request of the
petitioner was considered and was rejected by the Commissioner
of Excise as per Ext.P13 order dated 27.7.2005 stating that
Government have since clarified that there are no rules
supporting the claim for cancellation of the inter-district transfer.
Seeking cancellation of Ext.P13 and also the inter district transfer
he filed Ext.P14 representation to the Government on 25.1.2007.
It is thereafter that now this writ petition is filed on 12.8.2010, to
quash Ext.P8, P9 and P13 and to request the respondents to re-
transfer the petitioner to the Excise Divison, Wayanad.
4. As far as Exts,.P8 and P9 are concerned, the claim of the
petitioner for retention of his seniority is concluded by virtue of
the findings in Ext.P11 judgment which has become final and
WPC.No. 25680/2010
:3 :
binding on the petitioner. Therefore, Ext.P8 and P9 cannot be
attacked in this proceedings.
5. In so far as Ext.P13 is concerned, Ext.P13 says that there
is no rule for cancellation of inter-district transfer once granted.
No provision either in the special rules or in the General Rules
providing for cancellation of inter district transfer once granted, is
shown to me. Therefore, I see nothing erroneous in Ext.P13 as
well.
Writ Petition fails and is dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/