IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23542 of 2008(C)
1. RAJESH.S.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (K.S.E.B
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (H.R.M)
For Petitioner :DR.K.P.SATHEESAN
For Respondent :SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :25/08/2008
O R D E R
P.N.Ravindran, J.
=====================
W.P(C).No.23542 of 2008
=====================
Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a Senior Assistant in the service of the Kerala State
Electricity Board is aggrieved by his transfer from Kottayam to Vadakara.
Ext.P2 is the order of transfer. Aggrieved by Ext.P2, the petitioner filed
Ext.P3 representation seeking a transfer to Ernakulam Circle. He
thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.16222 of 2008. By Ext.P4 judgment delivered
on 30.5.2008, this Court directed the Chief Engineer to consider whether
the petitioner can be accommodated in a district nearer to Kottayam.
Such a direction was issued taking note of the fact that the petitioner’s
wife is employed in Kottayam District and also the fact that his child is
hardly 18 months old. By Ext.P5 order passed on 7.7.2008 the said
request was rejected. The petitioner has again approached this Court
challenging Ext.P5. The petitioner contends that a large number of
persons have been engaged on contract basis to work as Senior Assistant
in Kottayam Circle and that his transfer from Kottayam to Vadakara is
arbitrary and illegal.
2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the second respondent
contending that the sanctioned strength of Senior Assistants in Kottayam
Circle is 96 and that as against the sanctioned strength of 96, 125 Senior
WP(C)23542/08 -: 2 :-
Assistants were working in Kottayam District. It is also submitted that
six persons were eligible to be transferred to Kottayam Circle in
accordance with the guidelines. The respondents submit that 35 Senior
Assistants were therefore transferred out by Ext.P2. As regards 16
persons said to be working on contract basis in Kottayam Circle, it is
stated that steps have been taken to terminate their services and that
they were engaged for a specific period only.
3. When this Writ Petition came up on an earlier occasion this
Court had directed the respondents to consider whether the petitioner
can be accommodated in the nearby Circle in Ernakulam District. In the
statement filed on 25.8.2008 on behalf of the second respondent, it is
stated that in Ernakulam Circle also, there are excess hands and
therefore, there is no vacancy to accommodate the petitioner at present
in Ernakulam Circle.
4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the
learned counsel appearing on either side. The guidelines governing
transfer do not confer any enforceable right on the employee. This Court
in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India cannot interfere with anorder of transfer unless it is shown that the
order was passed by an incompetent authority or that it is violative of any
statutory rule or is shown to be one vitiated by malafides and rested on
extraneous considerations. In the instant case, the petitioner does not
allege any malafides against the transferring authority. Nor has the
WP(C)23542/08 -: 3 :-
petitioner been able to point out any violation of the statutory rules. The
petitioner has also no case that the order of transfer was passed by an
incompetent authority.
5. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the challenge to
Exts.P2 and P5. The Writ Petition accordingly fails and it is dismissed. I
make it clear that the dismissal of this Writ Petition will not be a bar for
the petitioner from moving the respondents at a later stage seeking a
transfer to another station.
P.N.Ravindran,
Judge.
ess 26/8