IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4449 of 2010(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ANSAR HUSSAIN, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED RAWTHER, WORKING AT TRADE INSTRUCTOR, SUB CENTRE, KOLLAM. 2. SHINE S. AGED 35 YEARS,S/O.SOMAN K, WORKING AS SCREEN PRINTER, SUB CENTRE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.SYAM J SAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE AUDIO VISUAL AND REPROGRAPHIC CENTRE, HEAD OFFICE COMPLEX, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. THE CHAIRMAN, GOVERNING BODY, KERALA STATE AUDIO VISUAL AND REPROGRAPHIC CENTRE, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATIONA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE VICE CHAIRMAN, KERALA, STAE AUDIO VISUAL AND REPROGRAPHIC CENTRE,THE OFFICE OF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN,SC, K.S.A.V.R.C. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) FOR R1 &2 SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 4449 of 2010 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.11.09 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER EXT.P2- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.11.09 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER EXT.P3- A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 6.12.08 EXT.P4- ORDER NO.KSAVRC/10597/08 DATED 10.12.08 EXT.P5- A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MASS PETITION DATED 16.12.08 EXT.P6- A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.3.09 IN W.P.(C). 1428/09 EXT.P7- A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.10.09, ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P8- A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.10.09, ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P9- A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 13.11.09 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER CHAPTER 8, 6 OF THE KERALA STTE AUDIO VISUAL AND REPROGRAPHIC CENTRE RULES ON SERVICE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES AND ALLIED MATTERS. EXT.P10- TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.09 IN W.P.(C).34097/09 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT EXT.P11- TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 31.12.09 OF THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P12- TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.KSAVRC/10328/08 DATED 27.1.10 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.R1(a)- TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNING BODY EXT.R1(b)- TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DATED 19.10.09 (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).4449/2010 ....................... Dated this the 8th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT 1st petitioner is a Trade Instructor and the 2nd petitioner is a Screen Printer at the Sub centre, Kollam of Kerala State Audio Visual and Reprographic Centre (KSAVRC), the 1st respondent. By Exts.P1 and P2, they were transferred and posted to Kozhikode and Kannur Centres. They challenged Exts.P1 and P2 before this Court by filing W.P.(C).34097/2009. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P10 judgment directing that in view of the disputed questions of fact, proper course open to the petitioners was to file an appeal before the Governing Body of the 1st respondent. On that basis, it was directed that if appeal is filed, same will be entertained and disposed of. Accordingly, petitioners filed Ext.P11 appeal which was considered and rejected by the Governing Body by Ext.P12 order. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been file challenging Exts.P1, P2 and P12 order rejecting the appeal. 2. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is mainly that when the present Managing Director of W.P.(C).4449/10 2 the 1st respondent assumed charge, the employees posted as a demonstration was taken out. It is contended that for this reason, they were proceeded against, and finally they were imposed punishment by Exts.P7 and P8 reducing their scale of pay. It is to wreck vengeance on them, they were transferred by Exts.P1 and P2. It is also his contention that the aspects that were directed to be considered in Ext.P10 judgment were not considered while issuing Ext.P1. 3. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that though for the misconducts committed by the petitioners, they were imposed punishment as per Exts.P7 and P8, neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the punishments imposed on the petitioners have any relevance insofar as Exts.P1 and P2 are concerned. It is stated that the petitioners have not succeeded in establishing any mala fides or other irregularity against the impugned orders of transfer and therefore, this Court should not interfere with the administrative decision taken by the 1st respondent. W.P.(C).4449/10 3 4. Petitioners have no case that the post held by them are not transferable. Therefore, employees like the petitioners have the liability to work at the transferred places. Then the question would arise whether the transfer was necessitated due to exigencies of service. 5. Counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent shows that in the Kollam Sub centre, where the petitioners are presently working, there is no student undergoing training process anf for that reason, they do not need any person for imparting training. It is also stated that for commercial works also, they do not need any employee and that despite all this, there are 11 employees including the petitioners. It is also stated that in the Sub centre at Kozhikode to which the 1st petitioner is transferred, there are 30 students who are undergoing training. They need three persons for imparting training. It is stated that for commercial works they need 15 employees and that against their total requirements, the number of employees now posted is only 11. Similarly in Kannur Sub centre, none is undergoing any training. They need 9 employees for attending commercial works. As against the said W.P.(C).4449/10 4 requirement, the present strength is only seven. According to the 1st respondent, it is in view of the non availability of work in Kollam and availability of work and the inadequacy of manpower at Kozhikode and Kannur, petitioners 1 and 2 were transferred. 6. There is no material to conclude that the aforesaid facts stated in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent is incorrect. If that be so, evidently exigencies of service has been made out in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent. In such a case unless a strong case of mala fides has been established by the petitioners, this Court will not be justified in interfering with Exts.P1 and P2. Although it is the case of the petitioners that Exts.P1 and P2 are the outcome of Exts.P7 and P8 orders of punishment, in the absence of any material, this Court will not be justified in accepting the contention of the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since the salary of the petitioners has been reduced and with the income that they now earn, it will not be possible for the petitioners to survive at the transferred places. As already seen, petitioners hold W.P.(C).4449/10 5 transferable posts and they have the liability to work at the transferred placed. Therefore, the fact that the petitioners are earning at the minimum of the scale will not invalidate the order of transfer, which is a part of their conditions of service. 8. I am not persuaded to interfere with Exts.P1 and P2 on the materials available in this writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs