IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2008 / 21ST ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29916 of 2008(J) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- USHA KUMARI K., UD TYPIST (MALAYALAM), DISTRICT PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SRI.B.BIPIN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, KOLLAM. 3. SHEEJA, UD TYPIST (MALAYALAM), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ----------------------------- W.P.(C) NO: 29916 of 2008 ----------------------------- Dated this 13th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an Upper Division Typist. By Ext.P3 order of transfer passed on 23-5-2008, she was transferred from the District Panchayat Office, Kollam to the office of the Assistant Director of Panchayats, Alappuzha. The third respondent is the substitute appointed in the petitioner's place at Kollam. The third respondent was formerly working in the office of the Assistant Director of Panchayats, Alappuzha. Even before Ext.P3 order of transfer took effect, it was cancelled by Ext.P5 proceedings dated 28-5-2008. Aggrieved by Ext.P5, the petitioner filed Ext.P6 representation before the Director of Panchayats. She thereafter filed W.P.(C) No. 18620 of 2008 in this Court. By Ext.P7 judgment delivered on 20-6-2008, this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Director of Panchayats to consider Ext.P6 representation and pass orders thereon within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgement. Pursuant to the directions in Ext.P7 judgment, the Director of Panchayats, passed Ext.P8 order dated 19-8-2008 rejecting the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P6 for a posting in Alappuzha district. However, Ext.P8 states that at the time of general transfer, the claim of the petitioner for a posting in Alappuzha will be considered. The petitioner has in the writ petition challenged Exts.P5 and W.P.(C) NO: 29916 of 2008 2 P8 orders and sought a declaration that she is entitled to be transferred to the office of the Assistant Director of Panchayats, Alappuzha or to any other office in Alappuzha district. The petitioner contends that Exts.P5 and P8 have been issued in violation of the guidelines and are therefore liable to be set aside. 2. The Apex Court has in State of U.P v. Gobardhan Lal (2004) 11 SCC 402 held as follows:- It is too late in the day for any government servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place of position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision. W.P.(C) NO: 29916 of 2008 3 3. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. The only ground on which Exts.P5 and P8 are challenged is that they have been issued in violation of the guidelines. As noticed by the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal (supra) guidelines do not confer on the petitioner any enforceable right. Further this Court cannot assess the niceties of administrative needs and requirements and substitute its decision in the place of the decision of the transferring authority. The order of transfer passed by the competent authority is also not one issued in violation of any statutory rule. It has also not been shown to be one vitiated by mala fides. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the challenge to Exts.P5 and P8. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE bps