IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33453 of 2008(G)
1. P.K.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O.KARUNAKARAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER
... Respondent
2. THE SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
3. CHIEF ENGINEER, CENTRAL REGION,
4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
5. M.V.CHARLIE, U.D.CLERK, OFFICE OF CHIEF
For Petitioner :SMT.C.G.BINDU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :13/11/2008
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 33453 of 2008
-------------------------------
Dated this the 13th November, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner, who is working as L.D.Clerk in the
office of the Kerala Water Authority at Tripunithura, has filed this
writ petition aggrieved by his transfer to Piravam. The
petitioner is a resident of Poothotta in Ernakulam. By the
impugned order, the petitioner was transferred from Tripunithura
to Piravom. The distance from Poothotta to Thripunithura and
Poothotta to Piravom is almost identical. The petitioner is not
transferred to a far away place. Hence, the transfer does not
really cause any inconvenience to him. Further, the order of
transfer is challenged on the ground that it offends the
guidelines governing transfer.
2. The Apex Court has in State of U.P. And
Others v. Gobardhan Lal (2004 (11) SCC 402) held that
guidelines governing transfer do not confer on the employee any
enforceable right and that guidelines exist only for the sake of
W.P.(C) No.33453 of 2008
2
guidance. The Apex Court has also held that an order of transfer
cannot be lightly interfered with, and unless the order of transfer
is shown to be one issued by an incompetent authority or one
issued in violation of the statutory rules or shown to be vitiated
by mala fides, this Court cannot interfere with the order of
transfer. It was further held that this Court exercising the
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot
act as an appellate authority, assess the niceties of the
administration needs and requirements of the situation and
substitute its decision in such matters.
3. In the instant case, the petitioner has not
pleaded or proved that the order of transfer is issued by an
incompetent authority. He has also no case that the order of
transfer is either vitiated by mala fides or is issued in violation of
any statutory rules. No concrete material also is placed before
me even to prima facie establish that the order of transfer is
vitiated by mala fides. The only ground on which the petitioner
W.P.(C) No.33453 of 2008
3
challenges the order of transfer is that it is issued in violation of
the guidelines.
In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of
the Apex Court in State of U.P. and Others v. Gobardhan Lal
(supra), the petitioner cannot seek implementation of guidelines
in letter and spirit and seek the intervention of this Court for a
direction to the respondents to retain him at Tripunithura. The
Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
P.N.RAVINDRAN,
JUDGE
nj.