IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 642 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.23537/2008 Dated 09/12/2003 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER ------------------------- P.V.SURESH BABU, ASST. SECURITY OFFICER, TRAINING DEPARTMENT, RUBBER BOARD, KOTTAYAM-9, NOW WORKING AT ZONAL OFFICE, GUWAHATI. BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.N.P.PRAJEESH RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, NEW DELHI. 2. THE RUBBER BOARD, SUB JAIL ROAD, KOTTAYAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, RUBBER BOARD, KOTTAYAM. ADV.SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASSISTANT SG FOR R1 SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHRA FOR R2 AND R3 SRI.MATHEWS K. UTHUPPADAN FOR R2 AND R3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------- W.A. No.642 OF 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. He approached this Court challenging Ext.P4 order, as per which, he has been transferred from Kottayam to Guwahati. He is an Assistant Security Officer working under the respondents. According to him, the transfer is vitiated by malafidies. Since he is a member of a Scheduled Caste, he is being harassed and discriminated. The respondents on the other hand submitted that one post of Assistant Security Officer has been shifted from Kerala to Guwahati. The petitioner being the senior-most, among the Security Officers serving in Kerala, has been transferred to Guwahati. The said transfer is made in exigencies of service. They denied the allegations of malafidies imputed against them by the appellant. A transfer can be impugned under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only on two grounds. They are 1) the transfer is contrary to any statutory provision. 2) It is vitiated by malafidies. W.A.No.642/2009 2 2. The learned Single Judge, who heard the writ petition, dismissed it holding that the transfer has been ordered in exigencies of service. Hence, this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended before us that the appellant has been transferred to harass him. His transfer is vitiated by malafidies. The said contention of the appellant is disputed by the respondents. Allegations of malafidies are easily made. But, it is difficult to substantiate them. We do not find any material to arrive at a conclusion that the transfer is vitiated by malafidies. Therefore, the appeal fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps