IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2011 / 25TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 26632 of 2011(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. J.RADHAKRISHNA KURUP, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 2. P.K.RAGHAVAN, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE, IDUKKI 3. A.V.SAJU, BEE KEEPING FILED MAN, KERALA KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE, THIHRUVANANTHAPURAM BY SRI.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- KERALA KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH,SC,KERALA KHADI BOARD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.26632/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31-3-2011 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2:- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3/6/2011 FILLING UP THE POST OF JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT IN PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.P3:- A TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER NORMS PREVAILING IN THE BOARD EXT.P4- A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY V.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT,IDUKKI OFFICE,SEEKING TRANSFER, TO PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.P4(A) TRUE COPIES OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE AND SERIES OF LAB REPORTS SHOWING THAT 2ND PETITINER'S WIFE IS SUFFERING FROM SEVERAL HEALTH RELATED PROBLEMS. EXT.P5:- A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. EXT.P6:- A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM THE SENIORTIY LIST OF BEE KEEPING FILED MAN PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P7:- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF TRANSFER DATED 4.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R(a):- COPY OF THE RESOLUTION AND STAFF PATTERN. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 26632 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th October, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P7 order by which they have been transferred from their present places of posting to Palakkad and Kozhikode. The first petitioner who is a Junior Superintendent has been transferred from Kottayam and posted at Palakkad. The second petitioner who is also a Junior Superintendent has been transferred and posted to the Village Office, Kozhikode. The third petitioner who is working as a Bee Keeping Field Man at Thiruvananthapuram has been transferred to the District Khadi and Village Industries Office, Palakkad and posted at Honey Processing Unit, Kalapetty. According to the petitioners the transfers are untimely and uncalled for considering the exigencies of service and the staff pattern and are liable to be set aside. It is pointed out that the first petitioner was promoted as per Ext.P1 to the post of Junior Superintendent to a vacancy that was existing at Ernakulam but was retained at Kottayam. The second petitioner who was promoted to the post of Junior Superintendent was also retained at his place of posting, Idukki. WPC No: 26632/2011 2 Since the first and second petitioners were retained from 31-3-2011 at their respective places of posting, the transfers could have been made after 31-3-2012 so that the hardships caused to the petitioners could be substantially mitigated. Further, since the first petitioner had been promoted to a vacancy that was in existence at Ernakulam a transfer was absolutely unnecessary, since he could have been posted to Ernakulam. Instead, as per Ext.P7 one Smt. Shagufa Bai, Junior Superintendent who has been transferred from Alappuzha is posted to Ernakulam. Therefore, it is pointed out that at any rate, there is a vacancy in existence at Alappuzha to which the first petitioner could have been posted. Since the transfers have been effected during this year, the petitioners would have to wait for at least three years before they would be eligible to submit a request for transfer to a place of their choice. Therefore, according to petitioners 1 and 2 the present transfer causes a lot of inconvenience and hardship to them. 2. The third petitioner has been working as a Bee Keeping Field Man at Thiruvananthapuram who has been transferred and posted to Palakkad, without any justification. To his vacancy no other person has been posted. For the above reasons, the WPC No: 26632/2011 3 petitioners contend that Ext.P7 order of transfer is liable to be set aside. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent pointing out that as per the staff pattern of the respondent there are five posts of Junior Superintendents at the Board Office at Thiruvananthapuram and one post of Junior Superintendent at each district offices. Therefore, retention of an additional person at a District Centre would be against the staff pattern. In view of the above, petitioners 1 and 2 who were promoted to the post of Junior Superintendent as per Ext.P1, being the juniormost Junior Superintendents, have been transferred out to Palakkad and Kozhikode respectively. It is also submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the first and second petitioners have been continuing at Thiruvananthapuram for the past more than 15 years. Therefore, there is no illegality in moving them to some other place. In the case of the third petitioner, he is a senior person, a Bee Keeping Filed Man whose services are required at the honey processing unit at Kalapetty where a new scheme is to be implemented, expending considerable volume of funds. It is also pointed out by the counsel that Ext.P3 regulations stipulate the filing of an appeal to the Board against the impugned transfer. WPC No: 26632/2011 4 Therefore, if the petitioners file appeals, they would be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. 4. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioners pointing out that though the counter affidavit speaks of a staff pattern, the same was not being adhered to at any of the places by the respondent. It is pointed out that though there is only one post of Bee Keeping Field man at Thiruvananthapuram, even after the transfer of the third petitioner, there are four other persons working in the said office. Further, at Ernakulam there are two Junior Superintendents posted, as is evident from Ext.P1. Therefore, it is pointed out that transfer of the petitioners in the middle of the academic year is not for any administrative exigency. 5. I have heard the counsel for the contesting parties. I have anxiously considered the rival contentions. 6. Transfer is an incident of service that no employee can avoid. The Apex Court as well as this Court have cautioned time and again that orders of transfer should not be lightly interfered with. Though the learned Senior Counsel who appears for the petitioners has contended with great vigour that there is no administrative compulsion to transfer the petitioners, it is to be borne in mind that the needs of the administration are best WPC No: 26632/2011 5 determined by the persons who are in charge of the administration. Though the reasons for the transfer of the petitioners at this time of the year is not forthcoming, in the absence of compelling circumstances to indicate that the transfers are vitiated by malafides, or other vitiating factors, the scope of interference with transfer orders like Ext.P7 is very limited. It may be true that the administrators could have waited for another five months up to the end of the academic year to effect the transfers. However, for the said reason, it cannot be said that the transfer of the petitioners as per Ext.P7 is vitiated by any extraneous consideration. It is pointed out that petitioners 1 and 2 have been continuing at their present places of posting for more than sixteen years and that the third petitioner has been continuing at the present place of posting for more than fifteen years. Therefore, the administration is certainly justified in transferring out the said persons. Further, the contention that the third petitioner's services are required in connection with the implementation of a project at Palakkad also is not seriously disputed. 7. It is vehemently contended that the staff pattern of the organisation is not being strictly followed and that persons far in excess of the sanctioned strength are retained or permitted to WPC No: 26632/2011 6 continue in different stations. However, when the administration tries to rectify the situation by transferring out some of the excess persons so retained, they cannot be found fault with. The above being the situation, I am not satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to interfere with the order of transfer Ext.P7 by which the petitioners are transferred. However, the petitioners have a right to file an appeal as per Ext.P3 regulations to the Board of the respondent. The counsel for the respondent assures that if such appeals are filed, they would be considered and disposed of in accordance with law, without delay. 8. In the above circumstances this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to file appeals in accordance with the provisions of Ext.P3 regulations to the Board. If such appeals are filed they would be considered and disposed of in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt thereof. Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj P.S.to Judge WPC No: 26632/2011 7