IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31420 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JAYAPRAKASH.V., JUNIOR ACCOUNTANT, PENSION PAYMENT SUB TREASURY, ERNAKULAM. COCHIN-682013. BY ADV. SRI.A.M.BABU RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT TREASUTRY OFFICER, DISTRICT TREASURY, ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD. 3. SMITHA.M., SENIOR ACCOUNTANT, PENSION PAYMENT SUB TREASURY, ERNAKULAM. COCHIN-682013. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. =============== W.P.(C).No.31420 of 2008 - M =============================== Dated this the 24th day of October, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner, who is an ex-service man and presently an employee of the Department of Treasuries, was promoted from the category of Junior Accountant to the category of Senior Accountant and posted in Sub Treasury, Ernakulam, by Ext.P1 order dated 17.10.2008 passed by the District Treasury Officer, Ernakulam. At the time when Ext.P1 order was issued, the petitioner was working as Junior Accountant in the Pension Payment Sub Treasury, Ernakulam. On promotion, by Ext.P3, he was posted in Sub Treasury, Ernakulam, as Senior Accountant. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges Ext.P1 to the extent it transfers him from Pension Payment Sub Treasury, Ernakulam to Sub Treasury, Ernakulam. The petitioner contends that his transfer from Pension Payment Sub Treasury, Ernakulam to Sub Treasury, Ernakulam is in violation of all transfer norms and that it is arbitrary and the outcome of a malafide exercise of power. In my considered opinion, the challenge made by the petitioner W.P.(C).No.31420 of 2008 - M 2 to Ext.P1 is without merit. The petitioner is transferred from one office in Ernakulam to another office. The petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved by a posting in the same station. The petitioner has no vested right to claim that even that on promotion he should not be transferred to any other station. Even if there is an existing vacancy in the higher post to which an employee is promoted, it is open to the appointing authority to transfer and post the promoted employee to another station. In the instant case, the transfer and posting on promotion was in another office in Ernakulam itself. This being the situation, the petitioner cannot claim the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-