IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2010 / 19TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29551 of 2010(T) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SANAL KUMARI.R., ASSISTANT, KERALA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM-1 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., P.B.NO.56, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR PIN 695 001. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., P.B.NO.56, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- PIN 695 001. 3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD ,REGIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM- 691 001. BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN,SC,KSCOA&RDB LTD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) 29551 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an Assistant in the Regional Office, Kollam of the Kerala State Co-operative and Rural Development Bank (for short 'the Bank'). This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P5 order whereby her request for transfer to the Head Office at Thiruvananthapurm was declined. According to the petitioner the reasons stated in Ext.P5 for declining the request are unsustainable and taking into account the fact that vacancies are available at Thiruvananthapuram, the respondents are bound to give her transfer against one of the said available vacancies. The petitioner was working in the Head Office of the Bank. As per order dated 21.5.2009, she was transferred to its Regional Office, Kanhangad in Kannur District. Later, on her representation, she was given transfer and posting to the present station as per Ext.P1 order dated 28.1.2010. Subsequently, she has submitted Exts.P3 and P4 representations requesting to transfer to the Head Office of the Bank at Thiruvananthapuram. In fact, it was the consideration of the said representations that led to the WPC No.29551/2010 2 issuance of Ext.P5 order. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner had joined the service of the first respondent on 5.3.1991. In fact, her initial posting was at Idukki. After joining duty there, the petitioner took leave on 6.3.1991, viz; the very next day itself and then continued on leave till 10.4.1991. In the meanwhile, considering the request made by the petitioner she was given transfer to Thiruvananthapuram and accordingly, she joined duty on 11.4.1991 in the Head Office at Thiruvananthapuram. From 11.4.1991 till 21.5.2009 viz., more than 18 years the petitioner had been continuing at Thiruvananthapuram. On 21.5.2009, she was transferred to its Regional Office, Kanhangad. After joining there, the petitioner made a request for re-transfer. Considering the request made by the petitioner she was given transfer from Kanhangad in Kannur District and was given a posting at the Regional Office of the Bank at Kollam on 28.1.2010. Dissatisfied with Ext.P1 order of transfer the petitioner has again approached the respondents by filing Exts.P3 and P4 representations, that ultimately culminated in Ext.P5. WPC No.29551/2010 3 3. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that a perusal of Ext.P5 would reveal that her request was not outrightly rejected whilst she was told as per Ext.P5 that her request for transfer to Thiruvananthapuram would be considered as and when the shortage of staff presently experienced by the Bank is solved. The contention of the petitioner is that it is her disturbing health that constrained her to approach the authorities for a favourable transfer and posting. 4. That apart, it is contended that the petitioner is a divorcee and her son is presently doing his B.Tech Engineering Course in the College of Engineering, Thiruvananthapuram. Further, it is stated that her father and one of her brothers are no more. The other brother is presently working in a gulf country and that her mother is aged 90 years and the aged mother is under her care. It is citing the aforesaid reasons that she made the request for a transfer to Thiruvananthapuram. 5. A perusal of Ext.P5 would reveal that the claim of the petitioner was not, in fact, rejected outrightly. According to the respondents there is scarcity of experienced hands in all the Regional Offices of the Bank. The learned Standing WPC No.29551/2010 4 Counsel further submits that the sanctioned strength of Assistants in the Bank is 162. However, as on today, only 108 Assistants are available. Despite such circumstances, a lenient attitude was taken in her case and she was allowed to stay at Thiruvananthapuram for more than 18 years. Though she was given a transfer to Kanhangad, she was given transfer from Kanhangad within a span of eight months to her neighbouring District viz., Kollam District. That apart, evidently, as per Ext.P5 it was informed that her request for transfer from Kollam to Thiruvananthapuram would be considered after solving the shortage of staff. In short, according to the respondents, in the said circumstances, they are not in a position at present, to accept the request of the petitioner. The distribution of staff in an establishment is a matter which falls within the domain of the employer and this Court cannot interfere in such matters especially in the circumstances as explained above. Above all, a scanning of her service particulars as explained by the respondents which remained undisputed, would reveal that during her career span of nineteen and a half years she had been in Thiruvananthapuram District itself for more than 18 years. The petitioner cannot as a matter of right claim that she WPC No.29551/2010 5 should be allowed to work at Thiruvananthapuram at all times. The details of service particulars of the petitioner would undoubtedly suggest that the respondents have been considerate towards the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, I find no ground to interfere with Ext.P5 order passed by the respondent. However, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the authorities at the appropriate time when the present crisis of scarcity of experienced hands is solved with a request for a favourable posting. With the said observation this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE jma //true copy// P.A to Judge