IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 2306 of 2006(A)
1. RAJANI GOPAL, D/O.GOPALAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER,
3. MURALEEDHARAN, SENIOR ACCOUNTANT,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.A.ABDUL SALAM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.RAMACHANDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :18/12/2006
O R D E R
M. RAMACHANDRAN & A.K.BASHEER, JJ.
----------------------------------------------
W.A.NO. 2306 of 2006
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of December, 2006
J U D G M E N T
Ramachandran, J.
Appellant was the petitioner in the writ petition and
she sought for a direction to be issued to the respondents. Her
request for transfer to Kuthiathodu as Senior Accountant of the
Sub Treasury was being consistently overlooked by the second
respondent for no valid reasons. According to her, the third
respondent had been remaining in the post in violation of norms
and appropriate directions were called for.
2. The learned Judge had held that in the matter of
transfer and postings, except under exceptional circumstances,
the court may not intervene. It was however held that that it
would be open to the petitioner to pursue the representations
which have been pending. In the appeal filed, Mr.Salam,
counsel for the appellant contends that it was a case where
interference was required. During the course of the writ
petition, a further request had been made, and it is submitted
that by order dated 11.9.2006, it had been rejected. As done
earlier, the Department had taken a view that the third
respondent belongs to the category of Scheduled Caste and in
WA NO. 2306 OF 2006
:-2-:
view of G.O.(P) No.11/90/P&ARD dated 5.5.1990 and G.O.(P)
No.12/04/P&ARD dated 10.9.2004, he could not have been
transferred. Mr. Salam points out that this was an
erroneous view. He submits that apart from general norms in
respect of Departments, additional norms had been
introduced and were in operation. He refers to Ext.P4 special
norms concerning the officers of the Treasury Department. It
is highlighted that the employees were not to be retained for
more than three years in a treasury. In respect of treasurers,
they were not to continue for more than three years in the
treasury and in respect of the other officers, it was to be
ensured that no person continued in any particular post for
more than three years.
3. According to the counsel, when the appellant had
returned after maternity leave, she was entitled to a posting
in consonance with a request as provided by norms.
However, she was overlooked at that time. It is further
submitted that the Government Orders relied on by the
District Treasury Officer while disposing of the representation
itself were inapplicable or in any case were subject to general
orders. The protractive provisions were to be interpreted as
WA NO. 2306 OF 2006
:-3-:
subservient to the other norms and there was no privilege
preserved whereby the Scheduled caste employees were to
be declared as entitled to remain in a sensitive post in
violation of the general norms. He has also a case that
because of the later orders, the benefit given by such order
(Ext.P1) was to be considered as not to be in force.
4. Although notice was served on the third
respondent, there was no appearance. Government Pleader
submits that it would be ensured that norms are observed
and no officer will be preferred or subjected to prejudice. The
respondents have to ensure that there is no discrimination
meted out when norms are applied. We find that the
directives issued by the Government to change the officers in
the Treasury Department is for sound reasons viz., that
persons who handle the Government funds in a station should
not be permitted to continue in the selfsame post indefinitely.
It may not be in their interest as well as Government’s
interest, as unknowingly affinities may develop, pattern may
set in, and ultimately, it may not be advisable. We are afraid,
it may not be possible to hold that this stipulation stands
relaxed in respect of any specified category. A contrary view
WA NO. 2306 OF 2006
:-4-:
would be against public interest. The appellant has therefore,
according to us, made a strong case for interference as her
claims are sidelined arbitrarily.
5. We direct that in supersession of all orders
passed, the first and second respondents should ensure that
the appellant is accommodated at Kuthiathodu as Sub
Treasury Officer subject of course to any other’s superior
claims, and as per her request at the earliest. In any case,
before the academic year 2007-08 starts, the postings are to
be carried out.
The writ appeal is disposed of as above.
sd/-
M. Ramachandran, Judge
sd/-
A.K.Basheer, Judge
Mbs/
-True Copy-
P.A.to Judge.
WA NO. 2306 OF 2006
:-5-:
M. RAMACHANDRAN &
A.K.BASHEER, JJ
——————————————
W.P.(FC).NO. OF 200
——————————————
J U D G M E N T
WA NO. 2306 OF 2006
:-6-:
DATED: -11-2006