IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 15TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 24157 of 2011(T) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. BABU GEORGE, S/O.K.U.GEORGE, AGED 53 YEARS, GRADE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, D.C.R.B., KOTTAYAM. 2. JAYASANKAR V.B., GRADE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT SPECIAL BRANCH, KOTTAYAM. 3. SHEREEF, K-4820, GRADE ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT SPECIAL BRANCH, KOTTAYAM. 4. RADHAKRISHNAN, K-4708, GRADE ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT SPECIAL BRANCH,KOTTAYAM. 5. SALEEM V.N., K-4882, GRADE ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, D.C.R.B., KOTTAYAM. 6. PUSHPAN P.V., K-4939, GRADE ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, D.C.R.B., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (STATE POLICE CHIEF), POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF), DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED, 2.9.2011AS KDO NO.662/11 EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE WIFE OF TH E FIRST PETITIONER FROM THE CARITAS CANCER INSTITUTE DATED, 24.1.2011 EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.7.2011 IN W.P.(C) NO. 17293/2011 OF THE HONOURABLE COURT RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 24157 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are working as Grade Sub Inspectors/Assistant Sub Inspectors in the District Special Branch and D.C.R.B., Kottayam. This writ petition has been filed on being aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of transfer dated 2.9.2011. In the case of the 1st and 4th petitioners they got only less than two years to retire from service on superannuation. In the case of the others they are yet to complete their normal tenure of three years in their present stations. It is also contended that no option was called for before effecting transfers as per Ext.P1. What is stated in the order is that the transfers and postings are ordered on administrative reason. The petitioners rely on a decision of this Court in Ext.P3 judgment in W.P(C)No.17293/2011 and connected matters to contend that the orders impugned thereunder and Ext.P1 order are of like nature and, therefore, being a party to Ext.P3 judgment the 2nd respondent should have considered all the aspects in the light of Ext.P3 before WPC.No.24157/2011 : 2 : taking a decision to transfer the petitioners. Obviously, in similar circumstances this Court considered all the relevant Government Orders and also Executive Directives and directed the second respondent herein who was the second respondent in some of the writ petitions covered by Ext.P3 to take into consideration the said orders before effecting transfers of police personnels. Ext.P3 is dated 8.7.2011. Evidently, Ext.P1 order was passed subsequent to Ext.P3 judgment. Ext.P1 order would reveal that the petitioners and certain other persons were ordered to be transferred and posted to different stations on administrative reasons. It is the practice of effecting transfers without following normal procedures and guidelines and clocking the expression 'administrative reason' even in the absolute absence of actual 'administrative exigency' and made only with a view to deviate from the normal methods that was deprecated by this Court in Ext.P3. Effecting enmasse transfers during the middle of an academic year is to be avoided unless there is extreme administrative exigency. As the second respondent should have adverted to such relevant factors, especially in the light of Ext.P3 judgment, before issuing Ext.P1 order of transfer. I WPC.No.24157/2011 : 3 : have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader. In the said circumstances obtained in this case, I am of the view that the issue requires reconsideration, taking into account Ext.P3 judgment. To enable the second respondent to consider the issue afresh Ext.P1 order shall be considered as a provisional transfer list. It will be open to the petitioners to place their objections raising their claims, contentions and grievances against the proposal in Ext.P1 order before the second respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. In case, the petitioners prefer such representations within the above stipulated time, the second respondent shall consider the same taking into account the judgment of this Court in Ext.P3 and pass appropriate orders thereon, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Till such time the petitioners shall be permitted to continue in their present station itself. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge