IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2009 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 30112 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.K.SIVAN, S/O.K.K.KOCHAL, AGED 52, REVENUE INSPECTOR, PONNANI MUNICIPALITY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS SRI.M.MANOJKUMAR (SHANTHIGIRI) SMT.RAGAM.S.MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, URBAN AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SRI.T.P.JANARDHARAN, REVENUE INSPECTOR, KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM. BY G.P.SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 30112 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 9th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims preference in the matter of transfer. 2. Pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 15106 of 2009, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 representation before the first respondent. The first respondent considered the rival claims of the petitioner and the third respondent and rejected Ext.P2 representation by Ext.P3 order. It is stated in Ext.P3 that being senior to the petitioner, the third respondent was eligible for preference. 3. Although it is contended by the petitioner that Ext.P3 order was passed without hearing him, the petitioner has not produced anything to interfere with the finding of seniority in Ext.P3 order, in favour of the third respondent. Therefore, by order dated 23-10-2009 this Court directed the petitioner to file an affidavit disclosing the basis of his claim that the third respondent is not senior to him. Accordingly, an affidavit has been filed wherein he only stated that he joined in the service on 14-2-1989, which is stated to be earlier to the third respondent joining service. 4. However, the learned Government Pleader points out that going W.P.(C) No. 30112/09 2 by the effective date of advice, the third respondent is senior and it was therefore that he is shown above the petitioner even in the seniority list. Thus, in the absence of any material to conclude that the finding in Ext.P3 regarding the seniority of the third respondent is erroneous, I am not inclined to interfere with the above finding. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. mn.