IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/9TH POUSHA 1933 WA.No. 2001 of 2011 () ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN W.P.(C) NO.33385/2011 DTD. 23.12.2011. .......... APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN W.P.(C) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, CIVIL SUPPLIES COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURA 695 003. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, CIVIL SUPPLIES COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033. BY ADV.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.S.MANILAL RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NO.3 IN W.P.(C) 1. T.RAJENDRAN NAIR, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF CIVIL SUPPLIES COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033, (UNDER ORDER OF TRANSFER AS TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE, KANAYANNUR, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM 682 301. 2. M.FAZARUDHEEN, TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE, KANAYANNUR, TRIPUNITHURA ERNAKULAM 682 301.(UNDER ORDER OF TRANSFER AS SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF THE CIVIL SUPPLIES COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033. BY ADV. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/12/2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.A. NO.2001/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES A:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 12.12.2011. B:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss P.N.RAVINDRAN & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. --------------------------- W.A No. 2001 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ravindran, J. This writ appeal arises from the interim order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 23.12.2011 in W.P.(C) No.33385 of 2011, whereby the learned Single Judge directed the appellants (respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition) to permit the first respondent herein (writ petitioner) to continue as Senior Superintendent in the Office of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies at Thiruvananthapuram until further orders. 2. The writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P7 order dated 12.12.2011 transferring the writ petitioner, who was working as Senior Superintendent in the Office of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies at Thiruvananthapuram, to Taluk Supply Office, Kanayannur, Ernakulam and transferring the third respondent in the writ petition (second respondent in writ appeal) from Taluk Supply Office, Kanayannur, Ernakulam to the Office of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies at Thiruvananthapuram. The order of transfer was challenged on various grounds including the contention that when persons who have requested for transfer to Ernakulam are available, there is no reason why the writ petitioner should be transferred to WA No.2001/2011 2 Ernakulam. The writ petitioner has in ground D of the writ petition specifically alleged that two persons by name Sri.A.G.Vijayan and Sri.P.Sreekumar, who are working as Senior Superintendents at Thiruvananthapuram have requested for transfer to Ernakulam District and in such circumstances as the third respondent in the writ petition could have been accommodated at Thiruvananthapuram by transferring out any one of the said two persons to Ernakulam District, the order transferring the petitioner cannot be sustained. 3. The appellants have not in the counter affidavit filed by them specifically denied the statement that Sri.A.G.Vijayan and Sri.P.Sreekumar, who are working as Senior Superintendents at Thiruvananthapuram have requested for transfer to Ernakulam. All that is stated in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit is that though there are 9 superintendents working in the Commissionerate of Civil Supplies, 4 of them will retire from service by 31.3.2012, that out of the remaining five, three are women who have crossed the age of 52 years, that the other two are the writ petitioner himself and Sri.K.U.Issac, that Sri.K.U.Issac is well experienced in matters relating to rationing of food articles and his service is essential for the smooth functioning of the Commissionerate of Civil Supplies and therefore a decision was taken to transfer the petitioner to Ernakulam to WA No.2001/2011 3 accommodate the third respondent. 4. When the writ appeal came up for admission hearing today, Sri.V.G.Arun, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent /writ petitioner submitted that the Government have by G.O.(Rt) No.414/2011/F&CSD dated 19.12.2011 accorded sanction to the Director of Civil Supplies to depute 16 officers in the cadre of Taluk Supply Officer/Senior Superintendent/City Rationing Officer to Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation and that Sri.K.U.Issac, named in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition, is one among the 16 persons named in the aforesaid Government order. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner also submitted that consequent thereon the Director of Civil Supplies has by proceedings dated 27.12.2011 relieved Sri.K.U.Issac and given charge of the post of Senior Superintendent held by Sri.K.U.Issac to Sri.R.Radhakrishnan Nair, Senior Superintendent. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that in such circumstances the grounds stated in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit to justify the writ petitioner's transfer to Ernakulam to accommodate the third respondent cannot be put forward. A copy each of the aforesaid Government order and the proceedings were made available to us for perusal. We have perused the same and they WA No.2001/2011 4 are incorporated in the records. 5. In our considered opinion in view of the fact that the post of Senior Superintended held by Sri.K.U.Issac in the office of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies is now vacant consequent on his deputation to the Civil Supplies Corporation, the second respondent herein (third respondent in the writ petition) or the writ petitioner can be accommodated at Thiruvananthapuram in that vacancy. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the interim order passed by the learned single Judge. The writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) P.Q.BARKATH ALI, (JUDGE) vps WA No.2001/2011 5