IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1501 of 2010(K)
1. P.H.ALI, S/O.HAMSA, HEAD WARDEN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, GENERAL OF POLICE
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KRALA, REP.BY SECRETARY, HOME
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGIE SIMON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :15/01/2010
O R D E R
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------------
W.P(C) NO: 1501 OF 2010 K
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th January, 2010.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a Head Constable in the Kerala Police. He is
now working as the Head Constable at Muvattupuzha Sub Jail
(prison). According to him he has been transferred to the said post
only on 1.5.2009. His case is that, within a short period thereafter
he has been again transferred as per Ext.P1. As per Ext.P1 he is
transferred and posted to the Central Prison, Viyyur. It is the case
of the petitioner that he is due to retire in March 2011. He relies
on Ext.P3 Guidelines for Transfer of Government Employees to
contend that he being a person due to retire within a period of two
years was not liable to be transferred. He also points out that
general transfer can be made only once a year by the middle of May
in all departments. The petitioner also has pointed out various
personal problems and he prays for a posting and retention at
Muvattupuzha.
2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the
learned Govt. Pleader.
3. A reading of Ext.P1 shows that the transfer of the
petitioner has been made on the ground of public interest.
WPC 1501/2010 2
Transfer is an incidence of service. The Government has the right
to decide how to deploy its employees so as to derive the maximum
benefit of their services. The petitioner has no allegations of
malafides against his transfer. He also does not dispute the
competency of the transferring authority. The transfer also cannot
be said to be in violation of any rules. In view of the above I find no
grounds to interfere with the order of transfer.
4. In deference to the personal problems and grievances that
the petitioner has narrated, it is submitted that he has already
submitted Ext.P2 representation to the first respondent. However,
it is alleged that the said representation has not reached the first
respondent so far because it has not been forwarded by the
Superintendent of Police. Therefore, the petitioner is free to make
a fresh representation to the first respondent setting out his
grievances in detail.
5. In view of the above this writ petition is disposed of
directing the petitioner to submit a representation to the first
respondent detailing his grievances, which he may do so within one
week. If such a representation is made within the time stipulated
above, the first respondent shall consider and pass orders thereon
in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and at any rate
WPC 1501/2010 3
within a period of three weeks thereafter. In the circumstances of
the case there will be no order as to costs.
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
Judge
jj
WPC 1501/2010 4
K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ.
—————————————————-
M.F.A.NO:
—————————————————–
JUDGMENT
Dated: