IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8000 of 2010(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- TITUS P.CHERIAN, SENIOR ASSISTANT, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KSEB, PUNALUR, KOLLAM (NOW UNDER ORDERS OF TRANSFER). BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM SRI.M.ANEESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, HRM, KSEB, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI. K.S. ANIL SC FOR KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.8000 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Senior Assistant in the Kerala State Electricity Board. This Writ Petition is filed challenging Exts.P6 and P10 orders. As per Ext.P6 order dated 22.12.2009, the petitioner was transferred from Punalur division to Manjeri. Aggrieved by the said order of transfer, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 representation before the first respondent. In the meanwhile, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.31946 of 2009. In the light of the judgment passed in the said Writ Petition, he was retained in Punalur and shortly thereafter, relieved pursuant to Ext.P6 and joined at Manjeri. Thereafter, he filed Ext.P7 representation and then filed W.P.(C) No.2044 of 2010. Later, as per Ext.P9 judgment dated 25.1.2010 the said Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the first respondent therein to consider the representation filed by the petitioner. Pursuant to the said direction, the first respondent considered the claim of the petitioner for cancellation of the order of transfer and passed Ext.P10 order dated 25.2.2010 rejecting his claim. W.P.(C)NO. 8000/2010 2 2. A scanning of Ext.P10 order would reveal that for the past nine years, the petitioner had been continuing in Punalur division. It is clear from the said order that going by the general criteria in the matter of transfer, all persons who had a considerable stay in a particular division were placed under orders of transfer. It is further stated in Ext.P10 that transfer is an incidence of service and that personal hardship is not a reason for claiming exemption from transfer. The reasons given by the respondents in passing Ext.P10 order cannot be said to be faulty. In fact, they have only followed the general criteria in the matter of transfer. Therefore, Ext.P10 order cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary warranting interference by this Court. The Writ Petition is devoid of any merits and it is accordingly dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ W.P.(C)NO. 8000/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO.8000/2010 JUDGMENT 11th March, 2010