IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 29853 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- NARAYANANKUTTY M.K.,S/O.N.BHASKARAN, AGED 48 YEARS,NOW WORKING AS DRAUGHTSMAN GD-1, P.H.SECTION,KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (GENERAL), KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,JALA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,P.H.DIVISION, MALAPPURAM,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,P.H.SUB DIVISION, MANJERI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. SHRI.THOMAS T.GEORGE, DRAUGHTSMAN GRADE-I,P.H.CIRCLE, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW FOR R5 SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN, SC, KWA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.29853/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.1.2002. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 22.1.2002. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.3.2008. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 6.7.2009. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.H.CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE DATED 16.7.2009. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 28.7.2009. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13.10.2009. EXTS. OF R5 EXT.R5(a): COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED 19.10.2009. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 29853 OF 2009 (B) ===================== Dated this the 10th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner joined service as an Overseer. He was promoted as Draughtsman Grade II. By Ext.P2, he was posted at Nilambur PH Section and was later transferred to Malappuram. Again, by Ext.P3, he was transferred back to Nilambur and still later, by Ext.P4, petitioner was promoted as Grade I and was posted to Calicut. He was transferred to Malappuram by Ext.P5, and to Nilambur as per Ext.P6. While continuing at Nilambur, by Ext.P7, he was transferred to PH Circle, Palakkad and the 5th respondent was transferred to Manjeri PH Sub Division under which the PH Circle, Nilambur is situated. It is challenging Ext.P7 transfer, the writ petition is filed. 2. Apart from the personal inconveniences and difficulties, no case of violation of any conditions of service or incompetence of the officer, who has issued Ext.P7 is canvassed. Therefore, relative individual hardships alone is the only point that is urged and to be considered. As far as the plea of the petitioner regarding the successive transfers to which he was WPC 29853/09 :2 : subjected to, at this stage itself, it should be noticed that the transfers and postings till Ext.P7 were all to places in and around Calicut and the petitioner has not been shifted to any distant place. Further, he also did not complain about any transfer so far issued. 3. As against this, the history of the 5th respondent also shows that he too was transferred and posted to different places successively. It is stated that he was appointed at Ponnani, then transferred to Manjeri and then to Nilambur and then to Parappanangadi, again to Manjeri, Nilambur and Malappuram respectively. It is stated that he was again transferred to Nilambur and to Malappuram and that from there he was transferred to PH Circle, Palakkad, from where he is now transferred to Manjeri. Like the petitioner, the 5th respondent is also submitting that he too has his aged parents and school going children to look after, and that if the transfer did not materialise, hardship will be caused to him. 4. Therefore, if one is to consider the individual hardships that are allegedly caused for the petitioner and the 5th respondent, the only inference that is possible is that both are WPC 29853/09 :3 : similarly situated. In such circumstances, there is nothing extraordinary in the case of the petitioner warranting interference with Ext.P7 order and that too in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the challenge against Ext.P7 fails and is rejected. 5. Taking into account the order passed by this Court directing to maintain status quo, it is directed that the petitioner will be given three days time from today to join at P.H.Circle, Palakkad. 6. Petitioner has a case that if anybody is to be transferred from Manjeri Circle, Draughtsmen Grade I having longer service are there, who are still not disturbed. If he has such a case, it is directed that it will be open to the petitioner to move the 2nd respondent by way of an appropriate representation, in which case, it is directed that the 2nd respondent shall consider the representation and pass orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of its receipt. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp