IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 2ND ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 25604 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- REKHA.D.R., SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT, CENTRAL SOIL TESTING LABORATORY, NALANCHIRA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-15. BY ADV. SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH SRI.V.SADASIVAN SRI.JESSEL VINOHAR RODRICKS SRI.K.JITHIN SMT.V.J.SAFEENA SRI.S.SANJITH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. V.K.RAJASEKHARAN, SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT, MOBILE SOIL TESTING LABORATORY, KOTTAYAM (UNDER ORDERS OF TRANSFER TO CENTRAL SOIL TESTING LABORATORY, NALANCHIRA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-15. 4. SHEEJA.J.R., SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT, CENTRAL SOIL TESTING LABORATORY, NALANCHIRA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-15. 5. B.T.SHALINI, SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT, CENTRAL SOIL TESTING LABORATORY, NALANCHIRA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-15. 6. A.S.FIROZ, SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT, CENTRAL SOIL TESTING LABORATORY, NALANCHIRA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-15. w.p.(c)no.25604/2008 7. KRISHNADAS, SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT, MOBILE SOIL TESTING LABORATORY, NALANCHIRA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-15. 8. SHEELA.K.S, SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT, MOBILE SOIL TESTING LABORATORY, NALANCHIRA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-15. 9. IGNATIUS LOYOLA, DIST.SOIL TESTING LABORATORY, NALANCHIRA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-15. 10. ASOK KUMAR, DIST.SOIL TESTING LABORATORY, NALANCHIRA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-15. ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: w.p.(c)no.25604/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.S.H(2)/63079/07 DATED 27.9.2007. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P)NO.15/89/P&ARD DATED 22.5.1989. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.S.H.(2)27163/08 DTD.11.8.2008. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT PASSED IN W.P.(C)NO.16491/2008 DTD.12.6.2008. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 17.8.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 24.11.2005 OF COMMANDER, BORDER ROADS TASK FORCE TO DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(A) TRUE COPY OF STANDING DISABILITY ASSESSMENT BOARD CERTIFICATE EXTRACTS. EXT.R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE STANDING DISABILITY ASSESSMENT BOARD CERTIFICATE AS REGARDS THIS RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(C) TRUE COPY OF GO(P)33/93/P&ARD DTD.18.6.93. EXT.R3(D) TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.130558SDI/82/GAD DTD. 10.3.2003. EXT.R3(E) TRUE COPY OF GO(P)12/2004/0&ARD DATEAD 10.9.2004. EXT.R3(F) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER DATED 21.2.2008 SUBMTITED BY THIS RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(G) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.4.2008 SUBMITTED BY THIS RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(H) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9.5.2008 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(I) TRUE COPY OF GO(RT)2302/66/PD DTD.1.9.1966. EXT.R(J) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.8.2007 SUBMITTED BY THIS RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ====================================== W.P.(C)No.25604 of 2008 ====================================== Dated this the 24th day of September 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order dated 11.8.2008 passed by the Director of Agriculture, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner is a Scientific Officer in the Agriculture Department. While she was working as Scientific Assistant in Kottayam District, by Ext.P1 order dated 27.9.2007, she was transferred and posted as Scientific Assistant in Thiruvananthapuram District. It appears that the third respondent, who was posted at Kottayam in the vacancy which arose pursuant to Ext.P1 order, filed W.P.(C)16491 of 2008 in this Court seeking a transfer to Thiruvananthapuram District. By Ext.P4 judgment delivered on 12.6.2008, this Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider his request and take a decision thereon. In Ext.P4 judgment, this Court directed as follows: W.P.(C)25604/2008 2 “In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider and take appropriate action on Exts.P6 to P8 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This shall be done with reference to Exts.P3 to P5. If the petitioner's claim is found to be eligible, Director shall not decline the same merely on the ground that there is no available vacancy as on date. The Director shall endeavour to find out whether a vacancy could be created, if necessary by shifting any person who has already completed sufficient tenure within Thiruvananthapuram District. In another words, I impress upon the Director the necessity to bear in mind the seriousness with which the petitioner's claim has to be considered”. 2. Pursuant to the said direction, the second respondent issued Ext.P3 order dated 11.8.2008 transferring the petitioner back to Kottayam and posting the third respondent in the petitioner's place at Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner contends that respondents 4 to 10 have 8 to 15 years of service at Thiruvananthapuram and that on the terms of Ext.P4 judgment, the Director ought to have transferred them out instead of transferring the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the observations made by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment in W.P.(C)25604/2008 3 support of the said contention. 3. It is brought to my notice that the petitioner has, in Ext.P5 representation dated 17.8.2008 moved the Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department seeking cancellation of Ext.P3 and her retention in Thiruvananthapuram District. It is evident from Ext.P4 judgment that the Director was bound to accommodate the third respondent at Thiruvananthapuram by moving out officers who had completed the prescribed tenure in Thiruvananthapuram District. According to the petitioner, she took charge at Thiruvananthapuram only in September 2007 and had not completed the prescribed tenure of three years at that station. The petitioner contends that respondents 4 to 10, on the other hand, have been at Thiruvananthapuram District for 8 to 15 years and therefore they ought to have been shifted from Thiruvananthapuram instead of transferring the petitioner back to Kottayam. 4. It is evident from Ext.P4 judgment that the Director was bound to shift officers who had completed the maximum period of three years at Thiruvananthapuram to accommodate the third respondent. A reading of Ext.P3 W.P.(C)25604/2008 4 indicates that that has not been done by the second respondent. Such being the situation, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P5, in the light of the observations contained in paragraph-3 of Ext.P4 judgment and take a decision thereon within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, the petitioner and respondents 4 to 10 shall also be afforded an opportunity of being heard. I make it clear that the third respondent need not be shifted from Thiruvananthapuram where he was posted as per Ext.P3 for the reason that this Court had in Ext.P4 judgment found that he deserves to be posted at Thiruvananthapuram having regard to the medical condition of his son. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE css/