IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 14414 of 2009(V) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ S.JAYARAJ, ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING) CORPORATION LTD., DISTRICT AUDITING, NEDUMANGAD WAREHOUSE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS.MR.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA MR.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING) CORPORATION LTD., P.B.NO.2263, SASTHAKRIPA OFFICE COMPLEX, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 010, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING) CORPORATION LTD., P.B.NO.2263, SASTHAKRIPA OFFICE COMPLEX, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1-R2 BY MR.ELVIN PETER.P.J, SC,BEVERAGES CORPN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P(C) No.14414 of 2009 -V ------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009. J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Elvin Peter.P.J, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Beverages Corporation Ltd. 2. The petitioner, who was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager/Accountant by Ext.P1 order dated 19.2.2009, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P8 order dated 14.5.2009 transferring him from the Warehouse of the Corporation at Nedumangad to the Warehouse at Kottarakkara. The petitioner contends that 12 persons named in para 4 of the writ petition have been retained in the Head office for more than a decade and that even though the said persons are also qualified to hold the post of Accountant in Warehouses, they are retained in the head office. The petitioner has been discriminated against and transferred out of Thiruvananthapuram district it is contended. The Corporation justifies the transfer of the petitioner on the ground that his service is required at Kottarakkara. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation states that among the Assistant Managers/Accountants in service only three persons possess B.Com degree and therefore the Corporation thought it fit to post the petitioner in the newly opened W.P(C) No.14414 of 2009 -V 2 Warehouse at Kottarakkara. 3. The petitioner does not question the competence of the Managing Director to issue Ext.P8 order of transfer transferring him from Nedumangad to Kottarakkara. He has also no case that by such transfer any statutory rule governing his service conditions has been violated. The petitioner’s only grievance is that some of the persons retained in the head office who could have been promoted to the post of Accountant are retained in the head office for more than a decade. In my opinion, the employer is the best judge of the situation and this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the employer and substitute its decision in the place of the decision of the employer. This Court can interfere with an order of transfer only if the order is one issued in violation of any statutory rule or by an incompetent officer or is proved to be malafide. I am therefore not persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order transferring the petitioner from Nedumangad to Kottarakkara is liable to be interfered with. 4. The pleadings disclose that aggrieved by his transfer, the petitioner has submitted Exts.P9 and P10 representations before the Managing Director of the Corporation wherein he has pointed out the fact that many other employees who could have been posted as Accountant W.P(C) No.14414 of 2009 -V 3 have been retained in the Head Office of the Corporation. Since the petitioner has moved the Managing Director of the Corporation, complaining about his transfer, the Managing Director will necessarily have to consider the said representations. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P9 and P10 representations and take a decision thereon expeditiously and in any event within one month from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before him. The Managing Director shall also afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing orders as directed above. If the Managing Director is the opinion that any other person or persons have to be heard, it will be open to him to hear such person or persons also. The Managing Director shall also consider the grievance of the petitioner that many employees have been retained in the Head office of the Corporation for more than a decade without being transferred out. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// ab PA to Judge W.P(C) No.14414 of 2009 -V 4