IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2009 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 24833 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- S.KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI, S/O.N.SANKARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, MINOR ERAMALLIKKARA DEVASWOM, SANTHI, ERAMELLIKKARA (SREEVALLABHAM, MATHILBHAGOM, THIRUVALLA.) BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND SMT.M.P.MARY SMT.AKHILA RANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BORAD-CHIEF COMMISSIONR OFFICE OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BUILDINGS NANDHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BUILDINGS NANDHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER THIRUVALLA GROUP THIRUVALLA. 4. GURUPRASAD, DEVASWOM SANTHI, KURATTI DEVASWOM, MANNAR, THIRUVALLA. 5. S.HARIKUMAR, DEVASWOM SANTHI, KUNNAMTHANAM DEVASWOM, KUNNAMTHANAM, THIRUVALLA. 6. N.E.VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, DEVASWOM SANTHI, MEENTHALAKARA DEVASWOM, MEENTHALAKARA, THIRUVALLA. ADV. SRI.P.GOPAL FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY FOR R4,5 & 6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.24833/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF TRANSFER OF THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NOS. 4 AND 5 BEARING NO.1102 DT 12.6.09 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE NORMS RELATING TO TRANSFER DT22.5.1995. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DT 17.6.2009 SUBMITTED BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.2. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT 29.6.09 BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.1. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF the ORDER DT 3.7.09 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.18297/09. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 3.7.09 TO RESPONDENT NO.3. EXT.P6(a): TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD EVIDENCING SERVICE OF EXT.P6 ON RESPONDENT NO.3. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 24.7.09 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 29.7.09 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.21322/09. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 12.8.09 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SERVICE BOOK OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE/STATEMENT DATED 14.10.2009 ISSUED BY THE THANTRI OF KURATTY DEVASWOM. EXTS OF R3 EXT.R3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES NO.138/05/S DT 10.2.2005. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 24833 OF 2009 (Y) ===================== Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner joined the respondent Devaswom as a Santhi as early as on 23/11/1988. According to the petitioner, respondents 4, 5 and 6 joined as Santhis much later to him and hence he is senior to them. During the general transfer of 2009, options were invited by the 3rd respondent and the petitioner opted for posting at Kaviyoor (Sivan Nada) Devaswom and Thiruvalla Devaswom. By Ext.P1 transfer order, option exercised by the petitioner were rejected and he was transferred to Eramellikkara Devaswom. He filed an appeal and also a writ petition before this Court. By Ext.P5, an interim order passed by this Court in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, taking into account the fact that there were certain mistakes in the option exercised by the petitioner, he was permitted to file a fresh representation to the 3rd respondent, and the 3rd respondent was directed to hear him and consider the representation. Meanwhile, petitioner also joined at the transferred place. It is stated that subsequent to that, the writ petition was disposed of in the light of Ext.P5 interim order. WPC 24833/09 :2 : 2. In view of Ext.P5, petitioner filed Ext.P6 representation to the 3rd respondent exercising three options. However, by Ext.P7, his options were rejected without hearing the petitioner. Ext.P7 was again challenged before this Court in WP(C) NO.21322/09. By Ext.P8 judgment, this Court quashed Ext.P7 and directed the 3rd respondent to reconsider the matter. Accordingly, the matter was reconsidered and Ext.P9 order has been passed rejecting the option exercised by the petitioner. In Ext.P9, it is stated that at the time when transfers and postings were ordered originally, the postings made to the Major Koratty Devaswom opted by the petitioner in Ext.P6 was in accordance with the guidelines prevailing. 3. In so far as the other two places opted by the petitioner are concerned, it is stated in Ext.P9 that the persons working there have not completed 3 years and therefore cannot be disturbed. In the additional counter affidavit filed in this writ petition, it is also stated that the petitioner had worked at Koratty Devaswom and therefore as between himself and a claimant who has not worked there, the person who has not worked there is liable to be preferred in terms of Clause 10(b) of Ext.R3(a), the transfer guidelines. 4. In this writ petition, petitioner challenges Ext.P9. Learned counsel contends that in Ext.P5 order, this Court having given WPC 24833/09 :3 : freedom to the petitioner to file a representation with a direction to the respondents to consider the same, Ext.P6 representation filed by him should be considered as the first option exercised by the petitioner and that on that basis his eligibility for transfer should have been considered. It is stated that if so considered, the reason stated in Ext.P9 to reject his options are unsustainable. 5. True, in Ext.P5, this Court gave liberty to the petitioner to make representation and that was ordered to be considered. Such liberty was given taking into account the mistake committed by the petitioner in exercising the option for general transfer. Although such liberty was given, fact remains that by the time, general transfer order was already issued and transferees had assumed charge. Therefore, in the process of redressing the grievance of the petitioner, the persons who are transferred on the basis of Ext.P1 general transfer order and assumed charge on that basis, could not have been disturbed. If so, the view taken in Ext.P9 that the proceedings and postings effected at the place opted by the petitioner were strictly in accordance with the guidelines is certainly a valid reason. 6. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a Melsanthi, who is now forced to work as a Santhi, I feel that the WPC 24833/09 :4 : petitioner has a genuine grievance, which deserves to be addressed. At this distance of time, I feel the grievance of the petitioner can be redressed without any prejudice to the other employees only if the petitioner is given freedom to exercise his options for postings as and when options were invited in February, 2010 as part of general transfer. It is directed that if the petitioner exercises his option as above, the same will be dealt with in accordance with the guidelines and also taking into account that he has a grievance to be redressed. 7. It is also directed that if before the general transfer becomes due, if any vacancy arises, it will be open to the petitioner to claim posting to such vacancies, in which event, the 3rd respondent shall deal with such representation with the sympathy that it deserves. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp