IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2008 / 6TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 18724 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: S.ABDUL RASHEED, AGED 48YEARS, S/O.SHOUKKATH ALI, FIREMAN DRIVER-CUM-PUMP OPERATOR, FIRE AND RESCUE STATION, KOLLAM DIST., RESIDING AT R.R.BHAVAN, EDAMULAKKAL, ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 321. BY ADV. SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH RESPONDENTS: 1. DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE DIVISION OFFICER, SOUTHERN DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. B.YESODHARAN, FIREMAN DRIVER-CUM PUMP OPERATOR, FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES STATION, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. COMMANDANT GENERAL, FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES, HEAD QUARTERS, CHENKAL CHOOLA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.ABDUL RAZZAK FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT THERE IS NO REPRESENTATION FOR THE PETITIONER NOR THE PETITIONER IS PRESENT. THE WRIT PETITION IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 28.7.2008 (SD/- V.GIRI, JUDGE) /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ====================================== W.P.(C)No.18724 of 2008 ====================================== Dated this the 3rd day of September 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is working as Fireman Driver cum Pump Operator in the Fire and Rescue Services - a wing of the department of Home Affairs, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 order of transfer. By Ext.P1 order passed on 13.6.2008, the first respondent transferred the petitioner from Fire and Rescue Station, Kadakkal, Kollam to Changanacherry. By the very same order, the second respondent was transferred to Changanacherry on his request and posted at Kadakkal. The petitioner submits that though he commenced service at Kadakkal from 20.4.2005 onwards and has completed three years at Kadakkal he could not have been transferred out to accommodate the second respondent, who had served at Changanacherry for only one year and one month. W.P.(c)18724/2008 2 2. The petitioner, relying on Ext.P2 government order laying down the guidelines for transfer, to contend that the order of transfer evidenced by Ext.P1 is one passed in violation of clause-3 of Ext.P2. According to the petitioner, though he has completed three years at Kadakkal, in view of paragraph-3 of Ext.P2, he can be displaced only by a person who has completed similar service in another station or unless his transfer has became necessary in public interest. The second respondent has entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit resisting the writ petition. The second respondent contends that transfer is a condition of service and that the guidelines governing transfer do not confer any enforceable right on the petitioner to assail Ext.P1. 3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by Smt.Kochumol Koduvath, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.S.A.Razzak, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. The Apex Court has in State of U.P. v Gobardhan Lal (2004(11)SCC 402) held that the guidance governing transfer are issued only for the purpose of guidelines and that they do not confer on the W.P.(c)18724/2008 3 employee an enforceable right. The Apex Court has further held that an order of transfer can be interfered with only if it is one passed by an incompetent authority or is shown to be one passed in violation of any statutory rule, or is proved to be mala fide. In the instant case, apart from contending that the transfer is not in tune with the guidelines evidenced by Ext.P2, the petitioner has no case except a vague plea of mala fides that the order of transfer is in any way vitiated. 4. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in State of U.P. v Gobardhan Lal (supra), the petitioner cannot rely on Ext.P2 guidelines to attack his transfer under Ext.P1. In the absence of a plea that the order of transfer was passed by an incompetent authority and in the absence of any pleading much less any proof to the effect that the order was passed mala fide and on extraneous considerations and also for the reason that no statutory rule which enjoins the authorities to retain the petitioner at Kadakkal was brought to my notice, I hold that the challenge to Ext.P1 is without merit. The writ petition accordingly fails and it is dismissed. W.P.(c)18724/2008 4 After the writ petition was dismissed Smt.Kochumol Koduvath, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dismissal of the writ petition may not stand in the way of the competent authority among the respondents considering the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P4 and passing orders thereon. I make it clear that nothing said in this judgment will stand in the way of the official respondents from considering Ext.P4 and passing orders thereon. This shall, however, be subject to the condition that by passing an order of Ext.P4, the present transfer and posting of the 2nd respondent shall not be disturbed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE css/