IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 19253 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.MOHANAN, PARAMBATH HOUSE, AMALA NAGAR, THRISSUR (WORKING AS DIVISIONAL ACCOUNTANT, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H.DIVISION, NATTIKA). BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H.DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, NATTIKA. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H.DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. 4. P.S.BABU RAJAN, DIVISIONAL ACCOUNTANT P.H.DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. BY ADV.SHRI C.UNNIKRISHNAN (SC-KWA) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 19253 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard Sri. T.Rajasekharan Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner, a person with hearing impairment has filed this writ petition challenging his transfer from Thrissur to Nattika. The petitioner was transferred and posted as Divisional Accountant in the office of the Kerala Water Authority at Thrissur on 20.12.2004 based on the request made by him while he was working at Thiruvananthapuram. After the normal tenure of three years, he was transferred out from Thrissur to Nattika which is approximately 20 Kms away from Thrissur, by Ext.P1 order dated 24.12.2007 issued by the Executive Engineer. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of transfer, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 representation before the Managing Director of the Kerala Water Authority. He thereafter filed W.P.(C) No. 27151 of 2008 in this Court challenging his transfer from Thrissur to Nattika, which had taken effect. The learned single Judge before whom the writ petition came for admission dismissed W.P.(C) No. 19253/09 2 the writ petition leaving open the petitioner’s right to file an appropriate representation before the higher authorities. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal by filing Writ Appeal No.440 of 2009. By Ext.P4 judgment delivered on 3.3.2009, the Division Bench of this Court directed the Managing Director of the Kerala Water Authority to consider the representations filed by the petitioner and pass orders thereon within one month from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of the judgment before him. Accordingly, the Managing Director of the Kerala Water Authority considered the petitioner’s representation and informed him by Ext.P5 letter dated 30.5.2009 that as he is hard of hearing, it has affected the co-ordination of urgent water supply works in Thrissur District and therefore he was transferred out to Nattika in order to secure the services of another person at Thrissur. Exts.P1 and P5 are under challenge in this writ petition. 3. The petitioner contends that as he has less than two years of service left before retirement and as he is a person with physical disability, he is entitled to priority in the matter of transfer and posting and therefore Ext.P1 order of transfer, that was upheld by Ext.P5, is W.P.(C) No. 19253/09 3 liable to be set aside. He relies on the stipulations in Ext.P2 guidelines in support of the said contention. The Apex Court has in State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal (2004 (11) SCC 402) has held that transfer is a prerogative of the authorities concerned and that this Court should not normally interfere with an order of transfer except when transfer order is shown to be vitiated by mala fides, or is issued in violation of any statutory provision or is issued by an authority not competent to pass such an order. The petitioner has no case that the order of transfer was issued by an incompetent authority. He has also no case that it has been issued in violation of any statutory rule. He has also no case that the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides. Even though it is stated that the order has been issued with ulterior motives, no cogent materials has been produced to hold that the order of transfer has been passed on extraneous considerations and with ulterior motives. Though the petitioner contends that the order of transfer is in violation of the guidelines, as the guidelines are not statutory in nature, the petitioner cannot seek enforcement of the guidelines. The guidelines which give priority to persons with physical disability will apply only in cases where employees who are W.P.(C) No. 19253/09 4 similarly placed make a request for transfer and such rules cannot be adopted by the appointing authority on the expiry of normal three years. The rule of priority is to be applied where competing claims are made by employees for posting in the same station. In my opinion as the petitioner was due for transfer and persons with hearing impairment are not immune for transfer, the petitioner cannot successfully assail his trnsfer. In any case, the transfer of the petitioner from Thrissur to Nattika which is well connected by road from Thrissur. In such circumstances it cannot be said that the transfer of the petitioner from Thrissur to Nattika will cause serious prejudice to him. I, accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps W.P.(C) No. 19253/09 5