IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 30126 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.M.SHAJAHAN, L.D. CLERK, NILESWARAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, P.O. NILESWARAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, KASARGOD. 2. SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, NILESWARAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KASARGOD. 3. V.M.RAJESH, L.D. CLERK, BEDUDUKKA P.O., BEDUDUKKA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.30126 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th October, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner who is working as a Lower Division Clerk in the Local Self Government Department, challenges Ext.P1 order of transfer by which he was transferred from Nileswaram Grama Panchayat to Kodom-Melloril Grama Panchayat. Ext.P1 order of transfer was passed by the Deputy Director of Panchayats, Kasargod District, on 24.9.2008. The vacancy that arose at Nileswaram Grama Panchayat pursuant to Ext.P1 was filled up by transferring and posting the third respondent. The petitioner contends that Ext.P1 order of transfer has been passed on the request of the President of Nileswaram Grama Panchayat and that Deputy Director of Panchayats transferred him out based on such a request. The petitioner further submits that the order of transfer is not in tune with the guidelines governing transfer of Government employees and W.P.(C) No.30126 of 2008 2 that the third respondent, the substitute appointed in his place, was not eligible for transfer, for the reason that he has not completed three years at the present station. 2. The Apex Court has in State of U.P. And Others v. Gobardhan Lal (2004 (11) SCC 402) held that an order of transfer can be interfered with only if it is one passed by an incompetent authority or is in violation of any statutory rule, or is shown to be vitiated by mala fides. It was further held that High Court cannot, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India act as an appellate authority over an order of transfer, assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation and set aside the order of transfer. It was held that this Court cannot substitute its own decision in the matter of transfer ordered by the competent authority and that even allegations of mala fides when made must be one inspiring confidence in the Court or are based on concrete materials. In the instant case, the petitioner has not W.P.(C) No.30126 of 2008 3 been able to show that the order of transfer evidenced by Ext.P1 has been passed by an incompetent authority or is one issued in violation of the statutory rules. The petitioner has also not made out a case with cogent material that the order of transfer is mala fide. I, therefore, find no merit in the challenge made by the petitioner to Ext.P1. The Writ petition accordingly fails and it is dismissed. After the writ petition was dismissed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be granted liberty to move the higher authorities seeking cancellation of Ext.P1 order of transfer and requesting for a posting in another station. I make it clear that the dismissal of the writ petition will not stand in the way of the Officers superior to the Deputy Director of Panchayats from entertaining such a request, if the petitioner seeks reconsideration of the transfer ordered as per Ext.P1. If the petitioner moves the Director of Panchayats by filing an appropriate representation within two W.P.(C) No.30126 of 2008 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the Director of Panchayats shall consider the same and take a decision thereon, within another two weeks thereafter. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE nj.