IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2011 / 26TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 27318 of 2011(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- DR.SREELEKHA .R., VALIYAVEETIL, KOIPALLY, KARAZHMA, OLAKETTIAMBALAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA-690 510. BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL), SRI.A.R.DILEEP, SMT.NAVA VARGHESE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUTLURE, GOVERNMENT SECRETRIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, VIKAS BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 4. DR.HEMA S. NAIR, VETERINARY SURGEON, VETERINARY DISPENSARY, VEEYAPURAM-690 514. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. E.M. ABDUL KHADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.27318/2011-L: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT -P1: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.D2/3104/2010/ETT.DATED 28/08/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT -P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.D2/3104/2010 ESTT. DATED 30/8/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT -P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. B3/1879/2011/ADMIN. DATED 01/3/2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT -P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.D2/1900/2011/ADMIN. DATED 04/10/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT -P5: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 14/10/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.27318 of 2011-L. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th October, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner, a Veterinary Surgeon, who has been posted to the Veterinary Dispensary, Chettikulangara in Alappuzha district has been transferred to the Veterinary Dispensary, Haripad, a place 25 Kms. away from her place of residence. The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order of transfer as an arbitrary exercise of power. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she had been posted to Chettikulangara, Alappuzha only on 1.3.2011 as per Ext.P3. The said transfer was on her request, to her home station. Hardly seven months after the said posting, the petitioner contends that there are no norms to transfer her to a station that is so close to her present place of posting. According to her, the transfer as per Ext.P4 has been ordered only to favour the 4th respondent who is WP(C).No.27318/2011-L. 2 Sl.No.116 therein. As per Ext.P4, the 4th respondent has been given a posting to Chettikulangara where the petitioner had been working. Sl.Nos.148 and 149 have also been transferred only to facilitate the posting of the 4th respondent to the place of her choice. Therefore, the petitioner contends that Ext.P4 is liable to be set aside in so far as it relates to her. 3. A reading of Ext.P4 shows that the said order has been issued on the ground of administrative convenience. True, Ext.P4 has been issued not at the time of general transfer. However, as many as 220 persons have been transferred and posted to various places in the Animal Husbandry Department. It cannot be said that the transfer and posting of the petitioner alone has been made on extraneous considerations. At any rate, there are absolutely no materials available before me to conclude that Ext.P4 is vitiated by any such extraneous factors. Since the petitioner has been transferred only to a nearby place, I am not satisfied that the transfer causes any inconvenience or hardship to the petitioner, as contended. Therefore, I am WP(C).No.27318/2011-L. 3 not inclined to interfere with the impugned order Ext.P4. 4. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 representation setting out her grievances and objections to the transfer effected and the same is pending consideration of the 2nd respondent. The learned Government Pleader submits that no orders have been passed on Ext.P5 till date. In the above circumstances, it is sufficient that the 2nd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P5 and pass appropriate thereon, expeditiously. 5. This writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner evidenced herein by Ext.P5 in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-