IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 24015 of 2007(H)
1. VIGIMOLE K.M., VETERINARY SURGEON,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR,
3. DR.LINCY CHANDRAN, VETERINARY SURGEON,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :14/08/2007
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No. 24015 of 2007
--------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of August, 2007
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a Veterinary Surgeon in the
Department of Animal Husbandry. From 16.6.2005 to
19.2.2007 she was working in the Calf Feed Subsidy
Scheme office at Thalayolaparambu in Kottayam District.
According to her, On account of illness she could not
undertake long distance travel and on that basis
representations were made seeking convenient posting in
a Dispensary. This was considered and by Exhibit-P1
order of the 2nd respondent, petitioner was posted at the
Veterinary Dispensary, Memmury in Kottayam District. In
her place, the 3rd respondent who was then working at
Champakkara at Kottayam was transferred and posted. By
Exhibit-P2 order on 1.8.2007, she has been transferred
out from the Veterinary Dispensary, Memmury and posted
in the Calf Feed Subsidy Scheme Office at
Thalayolaparambu in Kottayam District and the 3rd
respondent is posted at Memmury. Alleging that it is only
to accommodate the 3rd respondent in her own old chosen
W.P ( C) No. 24015 of 2007
2
place that this writ petition has been filed. Thereafter, she made
Exhibit -P3 representation before the 2nd respondent seeking
review of the order of transfer. The petitioner has placed
reliance on Exhibits P4 and P5, Exhibit-P4 is the Caste
Certificate certifying that she belongs to Scheduled Caste
community. Exhibit-P5 is the guidelines issued by the
Government, wherein, certain reservations are provided for in
favour of candidates belonging to SC/ST category, the benefit of
which is claimed by her.
2. It is settled law that this court can interfere with an
order of transfer, if there is a positive finding of malafides or on
grounds of illegalities. This case, at best is one of violation of
guidelines which does not confer any right enforceable under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence I do not find any
ground to interfere with the order of transfer.
3. The petitioner has highlighted her grievances in Ext-
P3 representation before the 2nd respondent which is pending.
In the circumstances, it is ordered that the 2nd respondent shall
take up and consider Ext.P3 representation filed by the
petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within four
W.P ( C) No. 24015 of 2007
3
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this
judgment before the 2nd respondent, for compliance.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) No. 24015 of 2007
4
K.THANKAPPAN,J
CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999
ORDER
25th May, 2007