IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2011 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 33968 of 2011(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.B.SUDHESAN, RATIONING INSPECTOR (NOW ORDERS OF TRANSFER), TOWN, KOLLAM. 2. K.MOHANAN, RATIONING INSPECTOR (NOW ORDERS OF TRANSFER), KILIKOLLUR, KOLLAM. 3. JOHN THOMAS, RATIONING INSPECTOR (NOW ORDERS OF TRANSFER), KUNDARA, KOLLAM. 4. C.V.ANIL KUMAR, RATIONING INSPECTOR (NOW ORDERS OF TRANSFER), CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, OFFICE OF THE CIVIL SUPPLIES COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM. PIN.691 012. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHAIJ RAJ. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 33968 OF 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE SAID PROCEEDINGS NO.C.S.8.2221/2011 DATED 14.12.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.8/2011 IN ITS PROCEEDINGS NO. (C.S)A6-6957/11 DATED 17.3.2011 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT G.O.(P)NO.12/04/P&ARD DATED 10.9.2004. EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.12.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE DISTRICT SECRETARY OF THE JOINT COUNCIL OF STATE SERVICE ORGANIZATION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL [TRUE COPY] P.S. TO JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 33968 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th December, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioners are working as Rationing Inspectors at various places in Kollam district. As per Ext.P1 order, they have been transferred. The first petitioner has been transferred to Kadaikal in Kottarakkara. The second petitioner has been transferred to Chavara in Karunagappally. The third petitioner has been transferred to Chadayamangalam in Kottarakkara and the fourth petitioner to Thevalakkara in Karunagappally. According to the petitioners, their present untimely transfers have the effect of upsetting their normal domestic life and are not necessitated by any grounds of public interest or administrative exigencies. The first and second petitioners are due to retire in November and December 2012. 2. According to the petitioners, the present transfer order has been issued only to favour some employees who enjoy political as well as other influences. As per the guidelines of transfer Ext.P3, the general transfer is to be effected during the months of April/May. Therefore, their present transfer is absolutely without WPC 33968/2011 2 justification. The petitioners have also produced Ext.P2, a circular issued by the first respondent. The said circular has been issued for the purpose of making the public distribution system more efficient and effective. Paragraph 3 of the circular provides that Rationing Inspectors should not be allowed to continue for more than one year in one Farka. Rationing Inspectors who have completed one year are to be transferred to some other Farka in the same taluk. It has been specifically stipulated that for no reason a person should be posted to the same Farka in which he has worked for one year. The petitioners are all persons who have completed more than one year at their present stations. Therefore, the transfers presently ordered are in accordance with the stipulations in Ext.P2. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioners, Ext.P3 being the guidelines issued by the Government, the provisions thereof cannot be altered or negatived by a circular issued by the first respondent. Therefore, it is contended that the rights available to the petitioners as per Ext.P3 guidelines cannot be taken away by the circular Ext.P2. 4. I have heard the learned Govt. Pleader also. According to the learned Govt. Pleader, the guidelines for transfer are issued for the guidance of the authorities who are empowered to issue the WPC 33968/2011 3 orders of transfer. The guidelines do not confer any rights on the employees. Ext.P2 is not in contravention of Ext.P3. Ext.P2 has been issued only in the peculiar nature of the duties that the Rationing Inspectors are called upon to discharge in the Civil Supplies Department. Therefore, Ext.P1 issued in terms of Ext.P2 is perfectly justified. 5. I have anxiously considered the rival contentions. I notice that the petitioners have been moved out only to places which are not far from their present places of posting. The transfers have been necessitated in view of Ext.P2 circular. The contention that Ext.P2 circular is invalid for the reason that it is in conflict with the provisions of Ext.P3 is not sustainable for the reason that the guidelines Ext.P3 do not confer any rights on the petitioners. Therefore, no rights of the petitioners have been affected by Ext.P2. It is also well settled that the guidelines for transfer are incapable of enforcement at the instance of the persons who are transferred. Ext.P2 has been issued as set out in the first paragraph thereof, with the object of making the public distribution system more efficient and effective. With the above object, the Rationing Inspectors are permitted to be stationed at one particular place only for one year. Rationing Inspectors who have been serving at a place for more than one year are directed to be shifted to the WPC 33968/2011 4 nearby taluks in order to ensure that the distribution of essential commodities is conducted efficiently. I notice that Ext.P2 has taken care to ensure that such persons who are transferred are posted to nearby taluks. 6. Since the petitioners have not been shifted to any place far away from their present place of posting, I am not satisfied that there is any substantial inconvenience or hardship caused to them. I am also not satisfied that the order of transfer Ext.P1 suffers from any infirmity justifying interference with the same in exercise of my jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution. This writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj P.S.to Judge WPC 33968/2011 5