IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2008 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 36626 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MOHANA DASAN V, SECRETARY, MUTHUTHALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH KOZHIKOTTIRI P.O., PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVT. DEPT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. C.H. RAJASREE, HEAD CLERK, KOYAKKODI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOZHIKODE DIST. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ====================================== W.P.(C)No. 36626 of 2008 ====================================== Dated this the 12th day of December 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is presently working as Secretary of the Muthuthala Grama Panchayat in Palakkad District. He challenges Ext.P5 order dated 6.12.2008 passed by the Director of Panchayats whereby the third respondent was promoted and posted as Secretary of the Erimayoor Grama Panchayat in Palakkad District. The petitioner claims that the third respondent was transferred and posted in Erimayoor Grama Panchayat ignoring his request in Ext.P4 and that the transfer of the third respondent to Erimayoor is not in tune with the guidelines. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Ext.P5 order was passed overlooking the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P4 representation dated 5.12.2008 and ignoring the queue list evidenced by Ext.P2. 2. The petitioner who belongs to Palakkad District is presently residing in Muthuthala Grama Panchayat. What he claims in Ext.P5 is transfer and posting to Erimayoor Grama Panchayat, which is closer to his home town. He claims that he is entitled to be preferred over the third respondent for transfer and posting in ErimayoorGrama Panchayat, on the terms of the guidelines governing transfer. The Apex Court has in State of U.P.v Gobardhan Lal [2004(11)SCC 402] W.P.(C)No.36626/2008 2 held that the guidelines governing transfer and posting of government employees do not confer any enforceable right on the employee. It was held that an order of transfer can be interfered with only when it is issued by an incompetent authority or is in violation of any statutory rule or is vitiated by malafides. In the instant case, the petitioner has no case that the order of transfer is vitiated on any of the three grounds. His only grievance is that on the terms of the guidelines governing transfer and posting of government employees, he is entitled to be preferred over the third respondent for transfer and posting to Erimayoor Grama Panchayat. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in State of U.P v Gobardhan Lal (supra), the petitioner cannot seek enforcement of the guidelines or compel the transferring authority to strictly adhere to the guidelines. The Apex Court has further held that this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the transferring authority, assess the administrative niceties and exigencies of the situation and substitute its own decision in the place of the decision of the transferring authority. As what the petitioner seeks is an enforcement of the guidelines, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in State of U.P.v Gobardarn Lal(supra), the reliefs prayed for by him cannot be W.P.(C)No.36626/2008 3 granted. The Writ Petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. It is clarified that the dismissal of the Writ Petition will not stand in the way of the Director of Panchayats considering the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P4 for transfer and posting to a station nearer to his place of residence. A decision on Ext.P4 shall be taken within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE css/