IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2011 / 11TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 18618 of 2011(B) ----------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- BABU GOPAL, SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, KALLOORKAD, RESIDING AT PUZHPAKAM, VADAKKUMMURI, THODUPUZHA EAST. BY ADVS. SRI.T.P.SAJAN SRI.M.MOHAMED NAVAZ RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, O/O. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. 3. AJITHAKUMARI, SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM - 686 691. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. L.G. SURESH BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON ON 02/08/2011, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO. 18623 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 18618 of 2011(B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER NO. E1/8647/2011 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 6.7.2011. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER AGAINST EXT.P1 ORDER DATED 7.7.2011. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14-7-2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)Nos. 18618 & 18623 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Common issues pose for consideration in these writ petitions and therefore, they are heard jointly and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners in these writ petitions are working as Sub Registrars and their grievance is against the transfer and posting effected as per order No.E1/8647/2011 dated 6.7.2011 produced as Ext.P1 in the former writ petition, to the extent it pertains to them. In the case of the petitioner in the former writ petition the contention is that he is left with only less than two years to retire from service. That apart, it is contended that he joined at the present station viz., Sub Registry Office, Kalloorkad only on 9.4.2010. Based on the said facts it is contended that the order of transfer was issued immediately after completion of just one year from the date of joining in the present station in blatant violation of the transfer norms and without any actual administrative exigency. Taking into account the said fact as also the fact that he is due to retire on WPC.Nos.18618 & 18623/2011 : 2 : 31.3.2013 the respondents should not have ordered transfer and posting of the petitioner from Sub Registry Office, Kalloorkad , it is contended. In the latter writ petition, like the petitioner in the former writ petition the first petitioner is also left with only less than two years of service for retirement. So also, he had joined at the present station viz., Sub Registry, Maradu only in April 2010. It is contended that the 3rd respondent who is transferred in place of the petitioner is junior to him. In the case of the second petitioner therein it is contended that she joined at the present place viz., Sub Registry Office, Mulanthuruthy only in April 2010 and that she is a widow. She got two children and in case the transfer order is implemented there would be none at home to attend the children. She had not requested for a transfer. All these aspects were never taken into consideration while ordering the transfer. 3. In the former writ petition, though notice was served on the 3rd respondent she he chosen to enter appearance and contested the proceedings. In the latter writ petition after receipt of notice in this proceedings only the 3rd respondent WPC.Nos.18618 & 18623/2011 : 3 : alone entered appearance and the 4th respondent has not chosen to enter appearance. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit in this writ petition. Along with the counter affidavit, the 3rd respondent produced a representation submitted by her for getting transfer as Ext.R3(a). Obviously, as per Ext.R3(a) the 3rd respondent had requested only for a transfer to any of the offices in Ernakulam District or in the neighbouring districts like Alappuzha, Kottayam or Thrissur so as to enable her to reach home daily after the office hours. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent in the latter writ petition and also the learned Government Pleader. As already noticed hereinbefore, in the former writ petition, despite the receipt of notice in this proceedings the 3rd respondent has not chosen to enter appearance. The same is the case of the 4th respondent in the latter writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that taking into account the request made by the 3rd respondent through Ext.R3(a), she could be accommodated on an existing vacancy at Muvattupuzha without disturbing the first petitioner. A perusal of transfer WPC.Nos.18618 & 18623/2011 : 4 : order would reveal that as regards the second petitioner and the 4th respondent in the latter writ petition it is a mutual transfer. The admitted position is that pursuant to the impugned orders of transfer the petitioners in all these writ petitions were relieved from their respective offices. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners except the petitioner in the former writ petition have not so far joined at the transferred offices. Taking into consideration the facts that petitioners have already been relieved and also that the request made by the 3rd respondent in the latter writ petition vide Ext.R3(a) and also the fact that despite the receipt of notices in these proceedings, the 3rd respondent in the former writ petition and the 4th respondent in the latter writ petition have not entered into appearance in these proceedings, I am inclined to dispose of these writ petitions with the following directions:- In case, the petitioners have not already preferred representations against the impugned orders of transfer the petitioners may file appropriate representations before the first respondent raising their grievances against the impugned WPC.Nos.18618 & 18623/2011 : 5 : orders of transfer together with their claims and contentions, within ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. In case, they prefer such representations raising their claims and contentions as also grievances against the impugned orders of transfer, the same shall be duly considered and appropriate orders shall be passed by the first respondent expeditiously, at any rate within a period of three weeks with notice to the petitioners as also persons who are transferred in place of the petitioners as per transfer order No.E1/8647/2011 dated 6.7.2011 of the second respondent. Disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge