IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2011 / 1ST ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25037 of 2011(D) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SINDHU.R.L,AGED 36 YEARS,W/O.SATHISH.P.V PONATH HOUSE,KONATHUKUNNU.P.O,THEKKUMKARA VILLAGE,THRISUR DISTRICT,WORKING AS UPPER DIVISION CLERK((UDC) AT PERFORMANCE AUDIT UNIT - 5, VELLANGALLUR BY ADVS. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.JAGAN ABRAHAM M. GEORGE SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD SRI.P.G.PRAMOD SRI.ONEAL SABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH,OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH,THRISSUR-688 001. 3. ABDULLA BABU.K,S/O.IBRAHIM,PUNNILATH HOUSE,VEMBALLOOR.P.O,KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 688 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 25037/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF ORDER OF TRANSFER DATED 14/09/2011. P2: COPY OF THE GUIDE LINES/GENERAL NORMS FOR TRANSFER AND POSTING OF EMPLOYEES IN LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT DATED 04/04/2007. P3: COPY OF G.O.(MS)106/76/P.D. DATED 01/04/1976. P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17/09/2011, SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)240/10/LSGD DATED 21/10/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 25037 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd September, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner, an Upper Division Clerk ('UDC' for short) at the Performance Audit Unit -5, Vellangallur has filed this writ petition challenging her transfer to Methala Zonal Office, Kodungallur Nagarasabha as per Ext.P1 order. According to the petitioner, her transfer is politically motivated, though she has not completed three years in her present posting and her transfer has the effect of moving her from Panchayat service to the Municipal Common Service. It is the further case of the petitioner that her transfer has been effected to accommodate the third respondent, on extraneous consideration. 2. The Govt. Pleader on instructions submits that the petitioner has been transferred to a place just 20 kms away from her present place of posting. The Govt. Pleader also asserts that the petitioner has not been shifted from Panchayat service to Municipal Common Service as alleged. She continues in the Panchayat service. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person who is entitled to the benefits of the WPC 25037/2011 2 concessions available to a person who has contracted an inter caste marriage. The learned Govt. Pleader points out that the prohibition is only against shifting such persons out of a radius of 50 kms, which is not violated in the present case. Therefore, it is contended that there are no grounds to attack the present transfer. 3. I have considered the rival contentions anxiously. As rightly pointed out by the learned Govt. Pleader the place at which the petitioner was working and the place to which she has been transferred are nearby places. Such shifting of employees for administrative convenience cannot be lightly interfered with. There is absolutely no material or evidence to support the contentions of the petitioner that she has been transferred for political reasons. Even assuming the existence of such political motives, the petitioner has not much reason to complain in view of the proximity of the place to which she has been shifted. Transfer is an incident of service which any Government employee has to accept. It cannot be denied that in the exigencies of service, the Government would have to shift its employees from place to place, which action cannot be interfered with, in the absence of grave irregularities. I do not find any such grave irregularity or illegality vitiating the transfer in WPC 25037/2011 3 the present case. The challenge against Ext.P1 fails. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 25037/2011 4