IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37557 of 2009(L) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ R.RAJALAKSHMI, SREEHARI, MALAYALAPPUZHA, THAZHAM POST. WORKING AS SPECIAL REVENUE INSPECTOR AT PATHANAMTHITTA LAND TRIBUNAL OFFICE. BY ADV. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. R.SURESH KUMAR, H C, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA 5. P.THULASEEDHARAN NAIR, VILLAGE OFFICER, H C, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA 6. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 37557 OF 2009 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Special Revenue Inspector in the office of the Special Tahsildar, Land Tribunal Office, Pathanamthitta. As per Ext.P1 she is transfered from the said office to Ranni as Village Officer. It is challenging the said order that this writ petition is filed. 2. The main contention of the petitioner is that she is transfered from Pathananmthitta to Ranni solely to accommodate respondents 4 and 5. According to the petitioner it is only for the purpose of giving respondents 4 and 5 suitable postings that she was transfered from Land Tribunal, Pathanamthitta to Ranni, as Village Officer. The case of the petitioner is that respondents 4 and 5 are working in the very same building in which the Land Tribunal Pathanamthitta is functioning and still, the respondents yielded to their requests. Based on the said W.P.(C) NO. 37557 OF 2009 2 facts it is contended that the transfer ordered as per Ext.P2 is actuated by malafides and therefore it is liable to be interfered with. It is also the contention of the petitioner that there is no administrative exigency warranting the transfer of the petitioner from Pathanamthitta. 3. A statement has been filed in this writ petition by the 2nd respondent. The respondents reiterate the stand that the transfer is ordered as per Ext.P1 only on administrative grounds and it is not infected with any malafides. It is the further contention that the present posting given to the petitioner will not cause her any inconvenience as she is a native of Malayalappuzha Village in Pathanamthitta District and the distance from her residence to the previous and present offices is equal viz., about 10 K.M. It is further stated therein that a request for more suitable posting of the petitioner would be considered at the time of general transfer for which only 2 or 3 months left. Taking into account the fact that pursuant to Ext.P1 the petitioner has already been relieved and respondents 4 and 5 have already W.P.(C) NO. 37557 OF 2009 3 joined duty at the respective places to which they were transferred, I do not propose to consider the rival contentions of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent or to issue notice to respondents 4 and 5 at this stage. According to me in the light of the subsequent developments, it is for the first respondent to consider the contentions raised by the petitioner especially, the ground of malafides. In the circumstance the petitioner will be at liberty to submit a proper representation indicating all her grievances against Ext.P1 order before the 1st respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. In case such a representation is submitted by the petitioner, the 1st respondent shall consider the same, with notice to respondents 4 and 5 and pass appropriate orders there on within a period of one month thereafter. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. mns