IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17254 of 2009(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SMT.P.THANKAMONY AMMA, W/O.P.BALACHANDRAN PILLAI, AGED 53 YEARS, WORKING AS SUPERVISOR, I.C.D.S., ITHIKKARA AND RESIDING AT POIKAVILA PUTHENVEEDU, NADAKKAL, KALLUVATHUKKAL P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV.MR.N.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, I.C.D.S., ITHIKKARA, CHATHANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM. 4. SMT.THARA BAI.S., SUPERVISOR, I.C.D.S., ITHIKKARA, CHATHANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM. 5. SMT.SUJITHA.S., SUPERVISOR, I.C.D.S., PANTHALAM. 6. SMT.VALSALA C.K., SUPERVISOR, I.C.D.S., KOLLAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.17254 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated 7th July, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.N.Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Anu Sivaraman, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3. 2. The petitioner, who is working as I.C.D.S. Supervisor at Ithikkara in Kollam District has filed this writ petition aggrieved by Ext.P3 order transferring her from Ithikkara to Cochin Corporation. The petitioner's grievance is that she has not completed the normal tenure of three years at Ithikkara and that the guidelines have not been strictly adhered to when she was transferred from Ithikkara. It is also submitted that she is due to retire from service within two years and therefore she ought to have been posted in her home district or a station of her choice. 3. The learned Government Pleader submits on instructions from respondents 1 to 3 that respondents 4 to 6 were posted at Ithikkara based on their request and that they had completed more than three years in the stations where they were formerly working. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that since a sizable section of the Supervisors belong to Thiruvananthapuram and Kollam WP(C).No.17254/2009 2 Districts, it is not possible to accommodate the petitioner in a station nearer to her home town. 4. The pleadings disclose that the petitioner challenges her transfer from Ithikkara to Cochin Corporation on the ground that the guidelines have not been strictly adhered to. She also projects her illness as a reason for annulling the transfer. In my opinion, if the petitioner is aggrieved by her transfer, she ought to have moved the Government instead of seeking the intervention of this Court. The employer is the best Judge of the situation and this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot assess the niceties of the situation and the administrative exigencies and substitute its decision in the place of the decision of the transferring authority. The Government can, ascertain the stations where vacancies exist or the stations to which the petitioner can be transferred. It is not for this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to find out the station where the petitioner can be accommodated and decide whether the petitioner sould be posted at one station or the other. Therefore, the petitioner should move the Government seeking redressal of her grievances. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with the direction that in the event of the petitioner filing an appropriate representation WP(C).No.17254/2009 3 before the Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department within one week from today, the Government shall consider the same having regard to the medical condition of the petitioner and the fact that she is to retire from service within two years and take a decision thereon within one month thereafter. The Government shall before passing orders on the representation, also afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS