IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/2ND POUSHA 1933 WPC.No. 32130 of 2011 (M) ---------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- N. SASSENDRAN, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION KOLLAM-691 001 UNDER ORDERS OF TRANSFER TO KSTP (KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT) KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADVS. SRI. P. SANTHOSH KUMAR (PANAMPALLY NAGAR) SRI. LUIZ GODWIN D'COUTH SRI. K.P. CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENT(S) : -------------------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY CIRCLE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 4. SMT.LEELA.M., EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION KOLLAM-691 001. R1 & R2 BY ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI. K.A. JALEEL R4 BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-12-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WPC.No. 32130 of 2011 (M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF GO DATED 24-11-2011. EXT.P2 : COPY OF GO DATED 29-11-2011. EXT.P3 : COPY OF GO DATED 12-10-2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : EXT.R4(a) : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF G.O.(RT) NO. 601/2011/PWD DATED 4.4.2011 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J --------------------------------------------- W.P.(c)No.32130 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of December 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is working as an Executive Engineer in the National Highway Division, Kollam, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2 order by which he has been transferred to Kottarakkara. According to the petitioner, he has joined duty at Kollam only on 25.11.2011, as per Ext.P1 order. He is due to retire from service on attaining superannuation on 31.3.2012. He has completed only five days at the present station Kollam. However, he has been transferred to Kottarakkara by Ext.P2. It is the further contention of the petitioner that he has been subjected to as many as four transfers during the current financial year itself. He had been promoted as an Executive Engineer on 4.4.2011, pursuant to that, he joined Idukki on 11.4.2011. Thereafter, on 26.8.2011, he was transferred to Thiruvananthapuram. It was in the above circumstances that as per Ext.P1 dated 24.11.2011, the petitioner was transferred to Kollam. However, he WPC No.32130 of 2011 2 has, within five days of his joining at Kollam, been transferred to Kottarakkara, as per Ext.P2. The petitioner also voices a grievance that all his above transfers are on the eve of his retirement, uncalled for, unjustified and liable to be set aside. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. According to the statement, the petitioner is a native of Ezhukon which is nearer to Kottarakkara than to Kollam and therefore, it is contended that the transfer and posting of the petitioner to Kottarakkara is beneficial to him. It is also contended that the petitioner has been posted to the Kerala State Transport Project ('KSTP' for short) which is a specialised wing of the PWD where the services of experienced and efficient officers are required. The petitioner has filed a reply to the statement of the first respondent. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the fourth respondent who has been transferred to Kollam to take the place of the petitioner as per Ext.P2. According to the fourth respondent, she is senior to the petitioner and was promoted as an Executive Engineer on 4.4.2011 as per the WPC No.32130 of 2011 3 same order by which the petitioner was also promoted. On promotion, the fourth respondent was posted at Kollam. However, as per Ext.P1, the fourth respondent was sent on deputation to the Kerala State Construction Corporation and was posted as its Regional Manager at Alappuzha, without any justification. As per Ext.P1, the petitioner was posted in her place. Thereupon, the fourth respondent had represented her grievances and on the basis of her representation, she has been posted back to Kollam. The transfer has been granted considering the fact that the fourth respondent is due to retire on 31.3.2013 and that her husband who is working as the Deputy Director, National Savings is also posted at Kollam. Therefore, it is contended that the fourth respondent has a superior claim for being posted at Kollam. Consequently, the fourth respondent prays that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in this writ petition. 4. I have heard Sri.P.Santhosh Kumar for the petitioner, the learned Additional Advocate General for the first respondent and Sri.Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha for WPC No.32130 of 2011 4 the fourth respondent. I have also anxiously considered the rival contentions. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is due to retire on 31.3.2012. He had been promoted as an Executive Engineer along with the fourth respondent as per Ext.R4(a) order on 4.4.2011. On promotion, the petitioner was posted to the Buildings Division, Idukki. According to the petitioner, he joined duty pursuant to Ext.R4(a) at Idukki on 11.4.2011. About four months thereafter, on 26.8.2011, he was transferred and posted to Thiruvannathapuram. Ext.P1 shows that on 24.11.2011, the petitioner has been transferred from the office of the Chief Engineer (Roads & Bridges) Division, Thiruvananthapuram and was posted as the Executive Engineer, National Highway, Kollam. He has been posted at Kollam in the place of the fourth respondent who was sent on deputation to the Kerala State Construction Corporation. It is in the above circumstances that the petitioner has been transferred to Kottarakkara by Ext.P2 order. 6. Though the counsel for the fourth respondent has WPC No.32130 of 2011 5 contended that the fourth respondent's transfer back to Kollam has been ordered on a consideration of her representation seeking such a transfer putting forward her superior claim, Ext.P2 order does not reflect any such representation or consideration. In fact, it is pertinent to note that neither Ext.P1 nor Ext.P2 states any reason for the transfers that are ordered. Even accepting the contention of the counsel for the fourth respondent that the petitioner had been ordered to be transferred back on her representation, there are no grounds to direct the fourth respondent to be posted in the place of the petitioner after transferring him. Request transfers are to be considered and granted during general transfers and the present untimely transfer on 29.11.2011 to accommodate the request of the fourth respondent cannot be justified. Though it is true that the Government has the power to order transfers without following the guidelines on the ground of public interest or exigencies of service, such grounds are conspicuous by their absence in Ext.P2. The statement filed by the first respondent also does not offer any explanation for WPC No.32130 of 2011 6 transfers to which the petitioner has been subjected to as detailed above. It is also necessary to be noticed that the guidelines protect persons on the eve of their retirement and direct that such persons should be granted postings to places of their choice. Far from giving a place of choice to the petitioner, he has been subjected to as many as four transfers within a single financial year. Since there is no material or evidence available to justify the transfer that has been ordered as per Ext.P2, I am satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. 7. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is allowed on the following terms: a) Ext.P2 transfer order in so far as it transfers the petitioner from Kollam to Kottarakkara is hereby set aside. b) The petitioner shall be retained at Kollam itself till his retirement. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE true copy css/ P.S.TO JUDGE