IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3804 of 2008(C) PETITIONER: --------------------- GEORGE MAMMEN, S/O. KOCHU VARKEY, ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, ELECTRICAL INSPECTORATE, ALAPUZHA, NOW RESIDING AT MARADU, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY SRI.THOMAS JACOB RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, POWER (A) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 3. JACOB MENACHERY, ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, KASARAGOD. R2 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN R3 BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED & SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C)No.3804 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT While working as Electric Inspector at Wayanad, the petitioner was transferred and posted as Electrical Inspector at Alappuzha. The petitioner is permanently settled at Ernakulam, according to him. He suffers from chronic ailments, which compels him to remain at home and it is, therefore, that he had secured a transfer to Alappuzha to enable him to travel from Ernakulam on daily basis. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 order of transfer by which he was transferred from Alappuzha to Kannur. The 3rd respondent, who is a native of Angamaly had requested for a transfer to a station nearer to home station and therefore, he was transferred from Kasaragod to Alappuzha. The transfer was challenged by the petitioner, inter alia, on the premise that the 3rd respondent is closely related to a former Minister and therefore, the transfer is vitiated by mala fides. 2. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying all the allegations in the writ petition. W.P.(C).NO.3804/08 :: 2 :: On going through the averments in the writ petition as also in the counter affidavit, I do not think it necessary to go into the details of the alleged mala fides which vitiates the order of transfer. 3. Pursuant to an interim order passed by this court on 1.2.2008, the petitioner is continuing at Alappuzha. But, unfortunately, the 3rd respondent is relieved from Kasaragod. According to him, as evidenced by Ext.R3(a) he had taken charge at Alappuzha. But he was relieved therefrom as evidenced by Ext.R3(b). Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.James Koshy submits that, as a matter of fact an open vacancy is scheduled to arise at Thrissur in March, 2008. Since the 3rd respondent is a native of Angamaly, it is possible that his claim could be better accommodated, if he is considered against the said vacancy and if that be so, disturbance of the petitioner from Alappuzha may not really be necessitated. In my view, these are matters to be considered by the competent authority. Petitioner has filed Ext.P3 before the 1st respondent, who is competent to consider the above claims. Ext.P3 does not W.P.(C).NO.3804/08 :: 3 :: refer to a possible vacancy arising in Thrissur. Therefore, it is open to the petitioner to supplement his representation. 4. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to take a decision on Ext.P3, along with any supplemental representation that may be filed by the petitioner, within two weeks from today, after hearing the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and any other affected parties. Such a decision shall be taken within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. A copy of this judgment shall also be attached to the supplemental representation. The interim order passed by this court on 1.2.2008 shall remain in force, till a decision is taken by the 1st respondent as aforementioned. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//