IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16653 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.P.M. MUSTHAFA, S/O. FAZAL HAJI, AGED 41, CHERATTIL HOUSE, FAZALIYYA ROAD, A.R. NAGAR POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 305, WORKING AS CLASS IV, REGIONAL CENTRE, SREE SANKARACHARY UNIVERSITY, TIRUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.G.BASIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR. 2. DY. REGISTRAR, ADMINISTRATION, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY. 3. DIRECTOR, REGIONAL CENTRE OF SSUC, TIRUR. 4. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, SREE SANKARACHARY UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY. ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN,SC,SANKARACHA.UTY FOR R-1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 16653 of 2010 F ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 18th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as a Class-IV employee under the first respondent University. As per Ext.P4, he is ordered to be transferred and posted as such at Thrissur Regional Centre. Even prior to the order of transfer, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 representation before the fourth respondent. His grievance is that without taking into account the same, he has been transferred as per Ext.P4. The contention of the petitioner is that Clause 17 of Ext.P7 Transfer Norms stipulates that in case both the husband and wife are in the services of the University, they shall be provided in the same station as far as possible without prejudice to the claims of the seniors. Yet another contention taken by the petitioner is that his wife, who is also an employee of the University, has now availed leave to attend her bedridden mother. Considering all these aspects, Ext.P4 is liable to be interfered with, it is submitted. 2. Essentially, the grievance of the petitioner against Ext.P4 is that it violates Ext.P7 Transfer Norms. It has been held WPC.16653/2010 : 2 : by this Court in a catena of cases that Transfer Norms are not enforceable. But, at the same time, having framed the Transfer Norms, they are bound by it. In such circumstances, I am of the view that any grievance with respect to the violation of the Transfer Norms has to be taken up before the appropriate authority under the University. It will be open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority against Ext.P4, raising his grievances, including violation of the Transfer Norms and grounds for compassionate consideration. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that pursuant to Ext.P4, the petitioner was relieved off his duties on 24-05-2010 and subsequently he has joined in the transferred station on 26-05-2010. 4. The allegation of malafides raised in 'Ground A' lacks a firm factual foundation and no malafides can be presumed based on such vague allegations. In short, I see no reason to interfere with Ext.P4 order of transfer. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that dismissal of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner approaching WPC.16653/2010 : 3 : appropriate authority under the University, raising violation of norms and also compassionate grounds, for a favourable order of posting. (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) aks