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. 23911 of 2009(H) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA SURVEY FIELD STAFF ASSOCIATION, REG.NO.158/72, JOINT COUNCIL BUILDING, TRIVANDRUM-695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MR.K.SHANAVAS KHAN. 2. R.ASHOK KUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.RAJASHEKARAN PILLAI, FIRST GRADE SURVEYOR, ESTABLISHMENT, TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.T.M.SUNIL, SMT.S.CHITHRA, MR.A.S.BRIJESH, MR.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNMENT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND SURVEY & LAND ROCRDS, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DIRECTOR OF SURVEY, TRIVANDRUM. 3. BIJU PRABHAKARAN, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, SURVEY & LAND RECORDS, VAZHUTHACAUD, TRIVANDRUM. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 23911 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard Smt. S.Chithra , the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Anu Sivaraman, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The first petitioner is an association representing employees of the Survey & Land Records Department. The second petitioner is a First Grade Surveyor in the said department and also the General Secretary of the first petitioner association. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 order issued by the Director of Survey transferring the second petitioner, who has been serving at Kollam for the past more than three years, to the district establishment of the Survey and Land Records Department in the State Capital, namely Thiruvananthapuram. Ext.P5 is challenged mainly on the ground that office bearers of recognised service associations are immune from transfer. Reliance is placed on Ext.P1 Government order in support of the said contention. 3. By Ext.P1 order dated 21.7.1967 the Government ordered W.P.(C) No. 23911/09 2 that Presidents and Secretaries of recognised service associations will have complete immunity from transfer except in cases where specific orders of Government have been taken for such transfer. The Government also directed that immunity from transfer will be granted to the President and Secretary of the central association only as distinct from the President and Secretary of the District or Taluk or other branches of an association. Later, by Ext.P2 the Government clarified that the intention of the Government was to facilitate the working of the President or Secretary of recognised association at the headquarters of the association and that immunity will be available only in the case of transfers from the headquarters of the association or union. 4. In my opinion, the very purpose underlying in Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 is not to give absolute immunity from transfer to the President and Secretary of a recognised service association from the stations where they are working. The immunity is confined only to transfer from the station where the head office of the service association which they represent, is situated. In the instant case it is admitted that the headquarters of the first petitioner association is in W.P.(C) No. 23911/09 3 Thiruvananthapuram. Therefore, the second petitioner's transfer from Kollam to Thiruvananthapuram will only enable him to effectively function as the Secretary of the first petitioner association. In other words, the transfer of the second petitioner is in tune with the guidelines issued in Ext.P1 and Ext.P2. I therefore find no merit in the challenge to Ext.P5. As regards the second prayer in the writ petition, I am of the opinion that since the said relief is sought in public interest, the petitioners should file a Public Interest Litigation with the necessary pleadings and materials. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the observation that nothing contained in this judgment will stand in the way of the petitioners from filing an appropriate writ petition seeking the third relief prayed for herein. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps W.P.(C) No. 23911/09 4