IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36261 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ RAVEENDRAN P, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD ROAD SECTION, KANHANGAD, KASARGOD DT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEYANANDA, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD SPECIAL BUILDING SECTION II, PULIKKUNNU, KASARGOD DT. SRI.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 36261 OF 2009 (C) ===================== Dated this the 15th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an Assistant Engineer in the Road Section, Kanhangad. By Ext.P1 order, he has been transferred to Special Buildings Section No.2, Kasargod and the 3rd respondent has been posted from Kasargode to his place. 2. Petitioner has no case that he has not completed the required tenure and is not liable for transfer. The main ground that is urged is relying on Rule 9(d) of Part II, KS&SSR. According to the petitioner, 3rd respondent's promotion was an out of turn promotion in a linguistic minority area of Kasargod and therefore unless he is retained at Kasargod, purpose of such out of turn promotion will be defeated. In my view, even if there is substance in this plea, such a plea can be raised not by the petitioner, but by the 3rd respondent, and therefore, the petitioner cannot resist his transfer relying on Rule 9(d) of Part II, KS & SSR. 3. This court can interfere with an order of transfer if malafides are made out or if it is against the conditions of service of the employees or in a case where the order has been issued by WPC 36261/09 :2 : an authority incompetent for the same. None of these grounds could be made out in this writ petition and therefore this Court will not be justified in interfering with Ext.P1 order transferring the petitioner and posting the 3rd respondent at his place. 4. Be that as it may, since petitioner seeks reconsideration of the order of transfer, I leave it open to the petitioner to move the 2nd respondent. Therefore, it is directed that if the petitioner files an application before the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent shall consider his grievance and deal with the same. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp