IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25483 of 2008(H) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- A.PHILOMAJAM, EMPLOYMENT OFFICER (SELF EMPLOYMENT), DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001. BY ADV. SRI.N.RADHAKRISHNAN SRI.B.V.BALAKRISHNAN SRI.B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT. LABOUR & REHABILITATION (G) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT, EMPLOYMENT DIRECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.N.Ravindran, J. ===================== W.P(C).No.25483 of 2008 ===================== Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P1 order of transfer. By Ext.P1, the petitioner, who was working as Employment Officer in the District Employment Exchange, Thiruvananthapuram was transferred and posted as Employment Officer in the Town Employment Exchange at Attingal, hardly 35 K.ms. north of Thiruvananthapuram. Sri.K.S.Nalinakumar Ghosh, who is not joined as a party to this Writ Petition is the substitute appointed at Thiruvananthapuram in the place of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that she is due to retire from service on 30.9.2010 and that her transfer at this stage offends the guidelines. In Ext.P1 the transferring authority has while considering the request of Sri.K.S.Nalinakumar Ghosh noticed that he is a handicapped person eligible for such transfer. It is also stated that the petitioner has longest period of service among the Employment Officers in Thiruvananthapuram District. The Apex Court has in State of U.P. and others v. Gobardhan Lal - (2004) 11 S.C.C. 402 held that guidelines governing transfer do not confer any enforceable right on the employee. The Apex Court has further held that an order of transfer cannot be lightly interfered with unless it is shown to be one passed by an incompetent authority or is passed in violation of any statutory rule or is WP(C) 25483/08 -: 2 :- proved to be rested on extraneous considerations and vitiated by malafides. In the instant case, the petitioner has not pleaded or proved that the order of transfer is issued by an incompetent authority or is one vitiated by malafides. As regards the challenge based on the guidelines, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court, the petitioner cannot compel the transferring authority to strictly adhere to the norms governing transfer. Further, the person transferred and posted in the petitioner's place is not a party to this Writ Petition and without him on the party array, the petitioner cannot claim continuance at Thiruvananthapuram. For these reasons, I hold that there is no merit in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition accordingly fails and it is dismissed. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 8/9