IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2008 / 12TH POUSHA 1929 WA.No. 1 of 2008 ------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.21673/2007 Dated 07/12/2007 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WPC ----------------------------------------------- HARILAL, HEAD CLERK, BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, MUTHUKULAM, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.K.JAGADEESH SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN WPC ------------------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MUTHUKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K. MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------------------- W. A. NO. 1 OF 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd January, 2008 JUDGMENT K.M. JOSEPH, J: Appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.21673/07 E. The Writ Petition was filed challenging Ext.P4. 2. The appellant while working at Ponnani, sought a transfer to either his native District Kollam, or the nearer Districts Kottayam or Alappuzha. He was transferred by Order dated 19.9.2006 to Anchal, Kollam. Thereafter, the appellant came to be transferred vide Ext.P2 dated 17.10.2006 to Kaduthuruthy, Kottayam District. By Ext.P3 order dated 13.6.2007, on his request, the appellant/petitioner was again transferred to Muthukulam at Alappuzha District. It is thereafter that Ext.P4 order is passed on 10.7.2007. In Ext.P4, it is noted that the appellant was compulsorily transferred to Kaduthuruthy vide Ext.P2 and that he has not completed one year service as required under the Norms, at Kaduthuruthy. In the said circumstances, modifying Ext.P3, the appellant was ordered to be retained at Kaduthuruthy. 3. The learned Single Judge by the impugned Judgment found that Ext.P4 is not liable to be interfered with and the petitioner may complete one year at Kaduthuruthy and thereafter he may work out his remedies. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner would contend that Ext.P2 was not actually a compulsory transfer and the petitioner, in fact, had made a request for transfer either to Kottayam or to his native place at Kollam. He was initially transferred to Kollam District. Thereafter, it is W.A.1/08 2 contended that it was actually pursuant to the request made by him that he came to be transferred to Kaduthuruthy and, therefore, Ext.P2 transfer must be treated as a request transfer. If the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4, it is for him to file a representation before the appropriate authority. Therefore, reserving liberty to the appellant to represent his grievance, if any, in regard to Ext.P4 before the competent authority, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.