IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20183 of 2010(W)
1. N.A.SANTHOSH KUMAR, HEAD CLERK,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(AGRL),
3. STATE OF KERALA,
4. P.RAMACHANDRAN, HEAD CLERK,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :19/07/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 20183 OF 2010
--------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner and the fourth respondent were working as UDC
in the Agriculture Department.
2. By Ext.P1 order, they were promoted to the post of Head
Clerk. Thereupon the petitioner was posted to Principal Agricultural
Office, Kannur and the fourth respondent to Thrissur.
3. From Ext.P5 order, it would appear that in pursuance to
Ext.P1 order, petitioner joined duty at Agricultural Office, Kannur on
10.5.2010 and entered on casual leave from 11.5.2010. On account of
this, due to administrative exigencies, the Principal Agricultural Officer,
Kannur transferred the petitioner to Chalode and a person working at
Chalode was transferred and posted in his place.
4. In the meanwhile the petitioner and the fourth respondent
represented against the order transferring and posting them. Ext.R4(b) is
the representation filed by the fourth respondent. The complaint of the
fourth respondent was that while he was transferred, his juniors were
retained at Thiruvananthapuram. He also stated that two vacancies of
UDCs and Head Clerks are to arise soon and therefore his claim for
posting at Thiruvananthapuram should be considered against one of
those vacancies.
5. While the fourth respondent’s claim was thus engaging the
WPC No.20183/2010
2
attention of the respondents, Ext.P2 order dated 23.6.2010 was issued
transferring the petitioner to Thiruvananthapuram and according to the
petitioner, he joined duty on 25.6.2010. It is stated that thereupon the
fourth respondent complained that his claim for posting to
Thiruvananthapuram was over looked and that the petitioner who is junior
to him was posted. Apparently, in order to remedy the situation, Ext.P3
order dated 25.6.2010 was issued transferring and posting the third
respondent to Thiruvananthapuram and the petitioner was transferred to
Thrissur. It was thereupon the petitioner has filed this writ petition
challenging Ext.P3 order transferring him to Thrissur.
6. The contention raised by the petitioner is that Ext.P3 order
transferring him and the fourth respondent would appear to be a mutual
transfer and that he did not consent to any such mutual transfer. It is also
stated that in pursuance to Ext.P2, he joined duty at Thiruvananthapuram
on 25.6.2010 and therefore there was no justification in transferring him
immediately thereafter.
7. From the facts as pleaded by the fourth respondent, it is
obvious that when he was posted to Thrissur, he filed a complaint to the
effect that his juniors have been retained at Thiruvananthapuram itself and
that he has been posted at Thrissur, ignoring his seniority. Admittedly, the
fourth respondent is senior to the petitioner also. Pleadings would show
that it was over looking the representation filed by the fourth respondent
WPC No.20183/2010
3
that Ext.P2 order issued on 23.6.2010 transferring and posting the
petitioner from Chalode to Thiruvananthapuram. When that mistake was
pointed out, Ext.P3 order was issued on 25.3.2006 correcting the mistake
and posting the fourth respondent to Thiruvananthapuram and
accommodating the petitioner at Thrissur in the post vacated by the fourth
respondent. An administration order, issued in such circumstances,
cannot be said to be an arbitrary exercise of power nor cannot be said to
be vitiated by any mala fides. Therefore, I am not persuaded to interfere
with Ext.P3 order.
8. Be that as it may, the petitioner contends that since his juniors
are retained at Thiruvananthapuram, there is no justification in posting him
at Thrissur. If he has such a contention, it is up to the petitioner to take up
the matter before the first respondent in which event it is directed that the
first respondent should consider the same and pass appropriate orders.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC
(JUDGE)
vps
WPC No.20183/2010
4
WPC No.20183/2010
5