IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2010 / 22ND SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 17086 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAMESH KUMAR.T.K., KUTTAM POYIL PARAMBU, CELARA CONVENT ROAD, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE-673 009. BY ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL, WOMEN'S POLY TECHNIC COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE. 3. SRI.ABDHUL SHUKKUR, UPPER DIVISION CLERK, WOMEN'S POLY TECHNIC COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE. BY G.P.SRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 17086 of 2010(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 24.4.2010 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.5.2010 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.5.2010 OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 1.9.1966. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE COMMANDING OFFICER WHERE THE PETITIONER'S BROTHER IS SERVING AS A JAVAN AND ADDRESSED TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.9.2004. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED 29.5.2010. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF HE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED FROM THE NATIONAL HOSPITAL KOZHIKODE WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER. // TRUE COPY // TKS C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.17086 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 13th August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 order whereby he was transferred and posted to Technical High School, Mananthavady and the third respondent was transferred and posted in his place. The contention of the petitioner is that in the matter of transfer the respondents have issued Ext.P1 provisional list. In Ext.P1 provisional list the name of the petitioner was not included. In respect of all persons whose names were included in Ext.P1, they were afforded with an opportunity to make complaints, if any, against the proposal thereunder. Subsequently, as per Ext.P2, the petitioner was transferred and posted and the third respondent was posted in his place. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P2 would reveal that the transfer of the petitioner and the third respondent were effected on administrative reasons. In fact, the petitioner is entitled to preference in the matter of transfer in the light of Exts.P4 and P5. Being a brother of a serving Jawan, the petitioner is entitled to get preference in the matter of transfer. If he was given an opportunity as has been given to persons WP(C).No.17086/2010 2 included in Ext.P1, the petitioner could have brought it to the notice of the concerned authority, it is further submitted. In short, such an opportunity which was granted to all similarly situated persons has been denied to the petitioner for no reason and apparently, it has worked out against him. Taking note of such situations, this writ petition was admitted on 2.6.2010 and notice was issued to the respondents. Despite the receipt of notice, the third respondent did not enter appearance. Therefore, it should be presumed that the third respondent did not have any objection with respect to granting of the prayer sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition. The first respondent also did not file any counter affidavit in this writ petition. As already observed, the name of the petitioner was not originally included in Ext.P1 and there is nothing on record to reveal the administrative exigency that made the authorities to effect transfer of the petitioner as also the third respondent despite the non-inclusion of the petitioner in Ext.P1 list. Taking into account the said facts and circumstances obtained in this case, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. WP(C).No.17086/2010 3 Accordingly, Ext.P2 is set aside to the extent it pertains to the petitioner and the third respondent. The second respondent is directed to issue consequential orders in the light of this judgment within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS