IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 WA.No. 549 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.4625/2010 Dated 19/02/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT IN THE WPC ----------------------- KARUNAKARAN A.S., ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ROAD SECTION, PUZHAKKAL, THRISSUR. (UNDER ORDER OF TRANSFER TO R & B CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALUVA). BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 &2 IN THE WPC ------------------------ 1. AMBIKA M.P., W/O K.MOHANAN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER(WORKS), PWD (R & B) CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALUVA. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D. ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.W.D.(R & B) CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALUVA. BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVACIS. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = == = = = W.A. No. 549 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = == = = = = DATED THIS, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Appellant is the third respondent in the writ petition. The writ petitioner, first respondent herein was transferred to Puzhakkal Road Section in Thrissur District where the appellant was working and he was transferred to Roads and Buildings, Central Circle, Aluva. Thus, it was a mutual transfer. Challenging the reason for transfer, the writ petition was filed, as not one based on any administrative procedures. 2. Learned Single Judge held that the Government has discretion in the matter of transferring the employees in public interest and also on such other legally permissible grounds, without considering guidelines issued, with a view to have a uniform policy of transfer and to avert arbitrariness. It was noticed that the appellant had only two years and 14 months service in Puzhakkal in Thrissur District whereas the first respondent has completed more than three years at Roads and Buildings, Central Circle, Aluva. In para 7 of the judgment, learned Single Judge has recorded the submission on behalf of the writ petitioner / first respondent that he is not pressing for W.A. 549/2010 2 interference with the transfer of the appellant herein and that deferring implementation of Ext.P1 till the end of the academic year to the extent it relates the writ petitioner and the appellant, would be sufficient to safeguard the future of her daughter who is studying in VIIIth standard. The learned Single Judge has also took notice of the fact that the writ petitioner/first respondent had already applied for considering her claim for transfer during general transfer and she is continuing in the Roads and Buildings, Central Circle, Aluva, based on the interim order passed on 11.2.2010. Taking into consideration of the above facts, the second respondent herein was directed to defer implementation of Ext.P1 to the extent it relates the first respondent and the appellant till 31.3.2010. That is the only relief granted. The time fixed in the judgment will be over by day after tomorrow. Since the relief couched based on the limited prayer made in the writ petition, we do not think the apprehension of the appellant that despite the limited prayer granted by this court, Government may interfere in the transfer because of the observation that the power to make transfer on compassionate ground is on Government and not on the Chief Engineer. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State submitted that as far as the writ appeal is considered, there is no such move to disturb him. This submission W.A. 549/2010 3 is recorded. The writ appeal, in such circumstances, is devoid of any merit. It is accordingly dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) P.N. RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) KNC/-