IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 24045 of 2008(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- MRS.LOVELY BHASKER, W/O.M.G.GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT "KARTHIKA", CHOTTANIKARA P.O., CHOTTANIKARA AND PRESENTLY WORKING AS HEALTH INSPECTOR GR.I, THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY, THRIPUNITHURA. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.JOY RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, DIRECTORATE OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY, THRIPUNITHURA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. VIJAYAN, PRESENTLY WORKING AS HEALTH INSPECTOR GR.I, ALUVA MUNICIPALITY. ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH FOR R4 SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU FOR R4 SRI.JAGAN GEORGE FOR R4 SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD FOR R4 SRI.P.G.PRAMOD FOR R4 SRI.V.M.KURIAN BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.24045/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER DT. 31.7.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ----------------------------- W.P.(C) NO: 24045 of 2008 ----------------------------- Dated this 30th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who is working as Health Inspector Gr.II challenges the order of transfer issued by the second respondent transfering her from Thripunithura Municipality to Aluva Municipality. The fourth respondent is the substitute appointed in the petitioner's place at Tripunithura. The petitioner submits that she had worked at various stations during the past four years and that as she has not completed the prescribed term of three years at Tripunithura her transfer to Aluva is liable to be set aside. The petitioner further contends that the order of transfer was issued to accommodate the fourth respondent at her native place. The grievance of the petitioner is that during the last four years she has been subjected to frequent transfers. 2. The fourth respondent has entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit. The fourth respondent would contend that during the period from 2003 to 2007 he has worked in Cochin, Calicut and Kanhangad Municipalities. The fourth respondent wpc:24045/2008 2 would also contend that as he has worked at Kanhangad Municipality for about two years he is entitled to be posted in his native place. The foruth respondent also submits that he has only two years to retire from service. 3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. The Apex Court has in (2004) 11 SCC 402 State of U P and Others v. Gobardhan Lal 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 or 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 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 violative of any statutory provision (an Act or rule) or passed by an authority 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 wpc:24045/2008 3 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. 4. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in State of U.P and Others v. Gobardhan Lal (supra) an order of transfer can be set aside only if it is passed in violation of any statutory rule or is passed by an incompetent authority or is shown to be mala fide. The petitioner has no case that the order of transfer is passed in violation of any statutory rule or by an incompetent authority. As regards the allegation that the order of transfer has been passed to accommodate the fourth respondent, the Apex Court has in State of U.P v. Gobardhan Lal (supra) held that even allegations of mala fides when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the Court and based on cogent materials. Since the petitioner has not made out a case that the order of transfer is mala fide, on that ground also she is not entitled to succeed. For the reasons stated above, I hold that there is no merit in the challenge of Ext.P1. The learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that the petitioner has filed an appeal on 3-9-2008 wpc:24045/2008 4 challenging the transfer of order before the Director of Urban Affairs and that the said authority may be directed to consider the appeal and pass order thereon after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. I make it clear that the dismissal of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the second respondent considering the appeal on its merits. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed leaving open the petitioners right to prosecute the appeal filed by her against Ext.P1 order of transfer. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE bps