IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22940 of 2008(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ K.N.CHANDRAN, DISTRICT EDUCATION MEDIA OFFICER, DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE (HEALTH), KOTTAYAM, (RESIDING AT BEENA SADANAM, VELLAVOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF THE HEALTH SERVICES, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. Y.SHIBU, DISTRICT EDUCATION MEDIA OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, KANNUR. 4. K.DEVE, DISTRICT EDUCATION MEDIA OFFICER OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHADEVI FOR R1, R2 ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH FOR R3& 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ====================================== W.P.(C)No.22940 of 2008 ====================================== Dated this the 21st day of August 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is working as District Education Media Officer, challenges his transfer by Ext.P4 from Kottayam to Kannur. The petitioner entered service as District Health Education Officer in the year 1992 pursuant to his appointment under Ext.P1. The post was later re-designated as District Education and Media Officer. From the date of entry in service till 31.3.2004, the petitioner served in Wayanad District. There after he was transferred and posted to Kottayam by Ext.P3 order dated 31.5.2004. By the order impugned in this writ petition, he was transferred from Kottayam to Kannur. The petitioner submits that at the time of general transfer for the year 2007-2008, he had sought a transfer to Pathanamthitta District for the reason that his wife is employed as a Teacher in Government service in Nedumkandom, his daughter is a student of the N.S.S Hindu College, Changanassery and his son is a student of Devaswom Board School, Pathanad. By Ext.P4, the third respondent was transferred and posted as District Education and Media Officer in Pathanamthitta and the 4th respondent was posted in the petitioner’s W.P.(C)22940/2008 2 place at Kottayam. 2. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that he is liable to be transferred out of Kottayam. In fact the pleadings would disclose that the petitioner seeks a transfer to Pathanamthitta. Therefore the challenge to the transfer of the 4th respondent, even on the petitioner’s own showing is without any merit. When the writ petition was heard today, Sri.K.Gopalakrishna Kurup, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submitted that the challenge to the transfer of the 4th respondent and his posting at Kottayam is not tenable. The learned counsel for the petitioner confined his submissions to the third respondent’s transfer from Kannur to Pathanamthitta. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per the norms governing transfer, as the petitioner had served for nearly 12 years Wayanad District which according to the guidelines is liable to be treated as 18 years, he has entitled to be preferred over the 3rd respondent for a posting at Pathanamthitta. 3. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit on his own behalf and on behalf of the 4th respondent. The third respondent states that he entered service in the year 1997 and from the date of entry in service till 29.6.2000, he was serving in Kannur. He was thereafter transferred to Thiruvananthapuram where he worked till 1.6.2003. He was again transferred to Kannur W.P.(C)22940/2008 3 on 2.6.2003 and for the past 5 years he has been working at Kannur. In these circumstances the third respondent contends that the petitioner cannot take explanation to his transfer to Pathanamthitta. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. It has been the consistent view of this Court that an order of transfer cannot be interfered with unless it is made on extraneous considerations or is mala fide. It has also been held that guidelines for transfer do not confer an enforceable right on the employee and that guidelines have been issued only for the purpose of guidance. 5. The Apex Court has in State of U.P. and others v Gobardhan Lal (2004(11 SCC 402) held that unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot be lightly interfered with. It was held that administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach the higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority the power to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest as is found necessitated by exigencies of service. W.P.(C)22940/2008 4 6. Going by the decision of the Apex Court, it is evident that administrative guidelines regulating transfer do not confer any legally enforceable right on the Government servant and cannot be relied upon to attack an order of transfer unless the order of transfer is shown to be mala fide or one issued in violation of any statutory order or by an incompetent officer. In the case on hand, the petitioner has not pleaded or proved that the order of transfer in any way vitiated. He relies on a guideline to contend that his service in Wayanad District for 12 years will give him a preferential right over third respondent for a posting at Pathanamthitta. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court noticed above, the petitioner cannot compel the authorities to strictly abide by the guidelines and regulate transfers strictly in terms thereof. In my opinion, in the absence of any challenge to the competence of the officer who issued Ext.P4 and in the absence of any pleading much less any proof of mala fides and also any plea that the transfer violates any statutory rule, the challenge to Ext.P4 is without merit. The writ petition accordingly fails, and it is dismissed.” 7. After the writ petition was dismissed, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be given liberty to move the competent authority seeking reconsideration of his transfer. I make it clear that nothing said in W.P.(C)22940/2008 5 this judgment will stand in the way of the petitioner making such a request and it will be open to the competent authority to consider and pass orders on the same subject to the condition that in that process respondents 3 and 4 shall not be transferred out from the station to which they have been posted as per Ext.P4. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE css/