IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2011 / 5TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20502 of 2011(K) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M.HAKKIM,SUB REGISTRAR (UNDER ORDER OF TRANSFER) OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER IBRAHIM RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN - 695 001. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, INSPECTORATE OF REGISTRATION,VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 035. 3. THULASI DAS. M,SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR,ENADIMANGALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691 524. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.20502/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE EMPLOYMENT CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER'S WIFE DATED 14/7/2011 ISSUED BY THE LAY SECRETARY AND TREASURER ATTACHED TO THE GENERAL HOSPITAL, PATHANAMTHITTA. P2 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 13/7/2011 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, ADOOR. P3 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 13/7/2011 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, ADOOR. P4 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 18/7/2011 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, ADOOR MUNICIPALITY. P5 COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 16/7/2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY HIS DOCTOR NAMELY LAJI JOSJUA THARAKAN, ORTHOPAEDICIAN, GENERAL HOSPITAL, PATHANAMTHITTA. P6 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER DATED 31/3/2011 BEARING NO.IGR/5820/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER NO.E1/8647/2011 DATED 6/7/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P8 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE UPDATED STAFF LIST AS ON 1/7/2011 OF PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR GENERAL, PATHANAMTHITTA. P9 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8/7/2011 IN WP(C)O.18592/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P10 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7/7/2011 FILEDBY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P11 COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO.E1-16057/2011 DATED 13/7/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P12 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E1-16057/2011 DATED 20/7/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P13 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25/7/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ sts P.A.TO.JUDGE C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.20502 of 2011-K. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th July, 2011. J U D G M E N T In this writ petition the petitioner challenges Ext.P12 order of transfer. Ext.P12 order happened to be issued under the following circumstances:- The 3rd respondent who was left with hardly nine months to retire from service was transferred as per Ext.P7. Challening the said order of transfer, the 3rd respondent had approached this court by filing WP(C).No.18592/2011. Taking into account the fact that he is having eight months to retire from service and such other reasons this court directed the transferring authority viz., the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 representation, referred as such in WP(C).No.18592/2011, submitted by the 3rd respondent herein and to pass appropriate orders thereon with notice to him and also to the 3rd respondent therein viz., the petitioner in this writ petition. In WP(C).No.20502/2011-K. 2 compliance with the said direction the 2nd respondent issued notice to the petitioner therein and also to the petitioner herein. It is evident from Ext.P12 itself that notices of hearing were served on them and thereafter, they were given opportunities of being heard. It is only thereafter that Ext.P12 was passed. As per Ext.P12, Ext.P3 representation submitted by the 3rd respondent herein was allowed and consequently his transfer made as per Ext.P7 was cancelled and the petitioner herein was transferred to Enadimangalam Sub Registry. It is challenging the said order this writ petition has been filed. 2. It is thus obvious from the facts mentioned above that Ext.P12 order was passed by the 2nd respondent pursuant to a consideration of the rival claims of the petitioner herein as also the 3rd respondent, in compliance with the direction contained in Ext.P9, that too after affording them opportunities of being heard. The contention of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent WP(C).No.20502/2011-K. 3 belongs to Enadimangalam and therefore, he cannot have any grievance against a posting in the Sub Registry at Enadimangalam. Going by the norms for transfer, a person who is having two years to retire can be given transfer to his/her place of choice. The 3rd respondent who is left with only eight months to retire prefers to stay at Adoor Sub Registry itself, as is evident from the pleadings. Taking into account all the said aspects I am of the view that there is no merit in the challenge against Ext.P12 especially taking into account the fact that the 3rd respondent would be having only eight months to retire from service. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, (Judge) Kvs/-