IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14277 of 2010(H) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- C.P.LAILA, SUPERVISOR, ICDS, KOZHIKODE URBAN 3, KOZHIKODE. RESIDING AT 38/2356 A, 'PRANAMAM', EDAKKAD, KOZHIKODE- 673 005. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. N.VIMALA, ICDS, KUNNUMMAL, KUTTIADI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.14277 of 2010 (H) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the Supervisor in ICDS, Kozhikkode Urban 3. By Ext.P2 order dated 29/04/2010, she has been transferred to Thodannur in Kozhikkode district itself. It is challenging Ext.P2 to the extent she is transferred, the writ petition is filed. 2. According to the petitioner, she is a chronic Asthmatic patient and relies on Ext.P3. It is stated that considering her illness, she may be permitted to continue at the present station. It is also contended that Ext.P2 order was issued ignoring her request made in Ext.P1 to the 2nd respondent requesting to retain her at the present station. Yet another complaint raised is that the 3rd respondent, who is to join in her station as ordered in Ext.P2, is also not interested to join there. 3. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that as against the case of the petitioner that she is due to retire in 2012, she is only to retire on 31/03/2013. It is also WP(C) No.14277/2010 -2- submitted that since 04/07/2006, she has been continuing in the present station, and that it was by way of general transfer that the petitioner has been transferred by Ext.P2 order and that too within the district itself. 4. Evidently, the petitioner is holding a transferable post, and she has completed almost 4 years in the present station. No sort of malafidies has been made out against the order of transfer. If that be so, transfer being a condition of service, the order of which cannot be faulted by a Court much less in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Be that as it may, if the petitioner has any grievance, it is directed that it will be open to the petitioner to move the 1st respondent, who has issued Ext.P2, in which event, the 1st respondent shall deal with her grievance and pass orders thereon, without any delay. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg