IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD APRIL 2010 / 3RD VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13754 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JAYAN.E., S/O. LATE EDWARD, 'SHARON', ANUPAMA NAGAR NALANCHIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WORKING AS SECRETARY MAYYANAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH. BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (J DEPARTMENT) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH OFFICE OF TJE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. T.JAYAKUMAR, SECRETARY, UMMANNUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY G.P.SRI.BY ARAVIND KUMAR BABU.TK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.13754 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 23rd April, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is working as Secretary of Mayyanad Grama Panchayat has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P5 order dated 13.4.2010 issued by the Director of Panchayats transferring him to Ezhukone Grama Panchayat. The 5th respondent is the substitute appointed in the petitioner's place. 2. The petitioner challenges his transfer from Mayyanad to Ezhukone on the ground that he has less than one year's service left and therefore the transfer offends the guidelines. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that he has completed nearly five years' service in Mayyanad. As per the guidelines governing transfer and posting of Government servants he was therefore due for transfer. Further, Ezhukone is not far away from Mayyanad where the petitioner is presently working. In such circumstances, as the petitioner was due for transfer, I find no merit in the challenge to Ext.P5. The appointing authority, according to me, is the best Judge of the situation and this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot assess the administrative WP(C).No.13754/2010 2 niceties and exigencies of the situation and substitute its decision in the place of the decision of the appointing authority/transferring authority. As held by the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal ((2004) 11 SCC 402) the guidelines governing transfer do not confer any enforceable right on the employee. The petitioner has not pleaded or proved that the order transferring him is one issued by an incompetent authority or is one contrary to any statutory rule or that it is mala fide. In any case, no cogent material which inspires confidence in this Court has been produced to establish the vague allegation of the petitioner that the order of transfer is mala fide. In such circumstances, I find no ground to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, it is clarified that the dismissal of the writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner from moving the Government seeking modification of the order of transfer and posting in another station. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS