IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 25451 of 2009(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JAYASREE.R, PEON, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, PLANNING SECTION, PUBLIC OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.P.V.ASHA. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. ANTONY MUKKATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.25451/2009-B: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER NO.B6/2759/07 DTD. 17/12/07 OF CHIEF ENGINEER ALONG WITH APPLICATION DTD. 12/12/07 OF PETITIONER. EXT.P.1.A: COPY OF THE DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO PETITIONER ON 10/10/95. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ED3/18538/07/T. ED. DTD. 20/11/2007 OF RESPONDENT. EXT.P.2.A: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ED3/1853/07/TD. ED. DTD. 06/03/2008 OF RESPONDENT. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ED3/20717/07 DTD. 13/03/2008 OF RESPONDENT. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ED3/42161/09/TD. ED/L.DIS. DTD. 03/08/2009 OF RESPONDENT. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.551/2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.25451 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Peon working in the Water Resources Department. She holds a Diploma in Electronics Engineering. She was appointed pursuant to advice by the PSC from a rank list for appointment of Government Servants to various departments. Since the promotion posts in the Irrigation Department are less in number, she sought an inter-departmental transfer to the Department of Technical Education. Though she had submitted her application in the year 2007, the same has not been considered. At the same time, applications made by others subsequent to the date of her application have been allowed. The denial of her request would block her promotion. Subsequently, by Ext.P4, the petitioner's request for inter-departmental transfer has been rejected. The order does not state reasons for the rejection of her request. According to the petitioner, Ext.P4 is unsustainable in law and fact. 2. The counsel for the petitioner relies on Ext.P5 judgment of Wpc 25451/2009 2 this court, by which rejection of a similar request for inter-departmental transfer was set aside. Thereafter, the Director of Technical Education was directed to issue orders permitting inter-departmental transfer of the petitioner therein. Accordingly, it is submitted that orders have also been issued to the said person. 3. A counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent contending that in the Technical Education Department, appointment of Peons are made by promotions from the category of Watchmen. Watchmen are appointed by the concerned heads of institutions who report such vacancies directly to the PSC. Therefore, the contention is that there is no appointment directly to the post of a Peon. For the above reason, it is contended that the request of the petitioner for inter-departmental transfer cannot be allowed. It is the further case of the first respondent that at present, there is no vacancy of a Peon in the Government Engineering Colleges/Polytechnic/Technical High Schools in Government institutions. 4. I have heard Smt. P.V.Asha, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader in detail. I have also considered Wpc 25451/2009 3 the rival contentions anxiously. 5. The impugned order Ext.P4 does not state any reasons for rejection of the request of the petitioner. The reasons set out in the counter affidavit of the first respondent are not sustainable for the reason that according to the first respondent, it is the heads of the various institutions who appoint persons as Watchmen, who alone are promoted as Peons. The first respondent being the superior authority, certainly has the power to allow a request for inter-departmental transfers. The said requests are to be considered on the basis of the merits of each case. However, in the present case, the first respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner mechanically and without applying his mind. Therefore, Ext.P4 is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. 6. I take note of the contention of the first respondent that at present there are no vacancies in the institutions at Thiruvananthapuram District for the petitioner to be accomodated on inter-departmental transfer. However, the petitioner would certainly be entitled to be accomodated in one of the vacancies that are likely to Wpc 25451/2009 4 arise on 31.3.2010. 7. In view of the above, there will be a direction to the first respondent to pass necessary orders allowing the request of the petitioner for inter-departmental transfer and to post her in the next arising vacancy of Peon in the Technical Education Department in Thiruvananthapuram District. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk