IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5740 of 2009(S) ------------------------- OA.562/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: --------------- CHACKO JOSEPH,CHIEF GOODS SUPERVISOR, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.N.R.CHANDRASEKHARAN SRI.T.H.CHACKO SRI.K.SAJAN KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, H.Q.OFFICE, PART TOWN.P.O, CHENNAI-600 003. 2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,PALGHAT DIVISION, PALGHAT. 3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,PALGHAT DIVISION, PALGHAT. 4. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALGHAT. 5. MR.S.RAMANATHAN, DEPUTY STATION MANAGER, COMMERCIAL, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALGHAT. SRI.N.B.SUNILNATH, SC, RAILWAYS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.5740 OF 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner, aggrieved by his transfer from Palakkad to Shornur, moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, by filing O.A.No.562/2008, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P2 in this writ petition. The respondents resisted the application contending that the petitioner has completed more than 20 years' of service at Palakkad. The Tribunal found that no ground has been made out warranting interference with the transfer order and the Original Application was dismissed by Ext.P1 order. Challenging the said order, this writ petition is filed. 2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the petitioner worked only for 17 years at Palakkad and persons with longer service are retained there. Therefore, there was no justification for his transfer, it was contended. W.P.(C) No.5740/2009 2 3. The ground urged by the learned counsel is not a ground for attacking a transfer order. Unless the order is shown to be illegal, that is, contrary to any statutory provision, or is vitiated by malafidies, the Court cannot interfere with the same. Going by the materials on record, we find that no such ground has been made out. Therefore, the Original Application has been rightly dismissed. Further, we notice that the transfer is to a nearby station well connected by rail and road. So, no prejudice or inconvenience is caused by the impugned transfer to the writ petitioner.. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps