IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929 WA.No. 373 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.22195/2007 Dated 09/01/2008 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER IN WPC ---------------------------- M.A.AUGUSTHY, NOW WORKING AS RECORD CUM STORE KEEPER, KERALA TODDY WORKERS BOARD OFFICE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM SRI.JOY C. PAUL SRI.DOMINIC JOHNSON SRI.SRUTHY M. RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN WPC ------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., ULLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., ULLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, TRICHUR. 4. THE WELFARE INSPECTOR, KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.Balakrishnan Nair & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 373 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner had approached this Court challenging Exts.P9 and P10 orders. By Ext.P9 dated 23-5-2006 his prayer for transfer to Thodupuzha Office was denied. By Ext.P10 it was held that in view of the resolution No.430 of the Board of Directors of the 1st respondent, the petitioner's claim for posting to Thodupuzha Office cannot be considered. The learned Single Judge who dismissed the writ petition gave liberty to the writ petitioner to represent after sometime for a posting to a place near to Thodupuzha and also ordered that if a representation is filed, the respondents will consider the same in accordance with law. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that when the alleged incident of misappropriation took place in Thodupuzha Office, the petitioner was not working there. Therefore, resolution No.430 mentioned above cannot stand in the way of his seeking transfer to that WA 373/08 2 place. But as per Ext.P10, his representation has been rejected assuming that he was working there at the relevant time. The same is illegal, it is pointed out. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. This Court can interfere with a transfer, if the same is illegal or vitiated by malafides. The petitioner has no such case in the writ petition. We, therefore, are not justified in interfering with the posting of the petitioner. But, if the petitioner represents before the competent authority at the time of next general transfer, his claim shall be considered in accordance with law. His contention that resolution No.430 will not affect him because he did not work at the relevant time in Thodupuzha Office shall also be taken in to account while disposing of his representation. The appeal is disposed of as above. K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N. Ravindran, Judge. WA 373/08 3 mn.