IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2787 of 2009()
1. VEDAVYASAN V.B., VALIYAVEEDU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING
3. THE ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM
4. THE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR (ADMINISTRATION
5. K.V.PRAKASAN, PASHUPALAKAN,
6. T.K.SURESH, PASHUPALAKAN,
7. ASOKAN, PASHUPALAKAN, KAVEEDU GOKULAM,
8. UNNI NARAYANAN, PASHUPALAKAN, KAVEEDU
For Petitioner :SRI.V.M.KURIAN
For Respondent :SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :06/01/2010
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
----------------------------------------------
W.A. No.2787 of 2009
----------------------------------------------
Dated 6th January, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The petitioner is a Pashupalakan working under the
Guruvayur Devaswom. The grievance raised by him in the writ
petition was against Ext.P8 order. The said order was passed
rejecting Ext.P7 representation filed by the appellant based on
the direction of this court in Ext.P6 judgment.
2. The grievance raised in Ext.P7 was regarding his
transfer to Vengad Gokulam from Kaveed Gokulam. According to
the appellant, his physical condition is not that good to work in
Vengad Gokulam, where the area is large and the number of cows
are larger, when compared to Kaveed Gokulam. By Ext.P8, the
Administrator of the Devaswom communicated the decision of the
Devaswom Board to the appellant, rejecting his representation.
So, the writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P8.
3. The learned Single Judge declined to interfere with
the impugned order. This court can interfere with a transfer order
only on limited grounds. If the transfer is illegal or vitiated by
malafides, this court may interfere with the same. We find that
WA NO.2787/2009 2
no such ground has been made in the writ petition. If the
physical condition of the appellant is such that he cannot work,
he may go on leave and undergo treatment to improve his
physical condition, and then join duty. If he is physically fit to join
duty, he should work, where the services of the appellant are
required by his employer. The appellant cannot be heard to say
that he is medically fit to work at Kaveed and not fit to work at
Vengad. In the matter of deployment of Pashupalakan, this court
cannot interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE.
tgs
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
———————————————-
W.A. No.2787 of 2009
———————————————-
J U D G M E N T
Dated 6th January, 2010.