IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 33453 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.K.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O.KARUNAKARAN NAIR, HINDU, AGED 46 YEARS, L.D.CLERK, WATER SUPPLY SUB DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THRIPUNITHURA. BY ADV. SMT.C.G.BINDU SMT.C.G.AJITHA SMT.D.SARITHA SMT.M.K.RAJITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, "JALA BHAVAN", THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CHIEF ENGINEER, CENTRAL REGION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, HOSPITAL ROAD, COCHIN-11. 4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER SUPPLY SUB DIVISION,KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THRIPUNITHURA. 5. M.V.CHARLIE, U.D.CLERK, OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, CENTRAL REGION, KERALAL WATER AUTHIRITY, HOSPITAL ROAD, COCHIN-11. (PRESIDENT OF ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY STAFF ASSOCIATION INTUC (1) ) BY SC FOR KWA SRI.J.KRISHNAKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 33453 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 13th November, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who is working as L.D.Clerk in the office of the Kerala Water Authority at Tripunithura, has filed this writ petition aggrieved by his transfer to Piravam. The petitioner is a resident of Poothotta in Ernakulam. By the impugned order, the petitioner was transferred from Tripunithura to Piravom. The distance from Poothotta to Thripunithura and Poothotta to Piravom is almost identical. The petitioner is not transferred to a far away place. Hence, the transfer does not really cause any inconvenience to him. Further, the order of transfer is challenged on the ground that it offends the guidelines governing transfer. 2. The Apex Court has in State of U.P. And Others v. Gobardhan Lal (2004 (11) SCC 402) held that guidelines governing transfer do not confer on the employee any enforceable right and that guidelines exist only for the sake of W.P.(C) No.33453 of 2008 2 guidance. The Apex Court has also held that an order of transfer cannot be lightly interfered with, and unless the order of transfer is shown to be one issued by an incompetent authority or one issued in violation of the statutory rules or shown to be vitiated by mala fides, this Court cannot interfere with the order of transfer. It was further held that this Court exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot act as an appellate authority, assess the niceties of the administration needs and requirements of the situation and substitute its decision in such matters. 3. In the instant case, the petitioner has not pleaded or proved that the order of transfer is issued by an incompetent authority. He has also no case that the order of transfer is either vitiated by mala fides or is issued in violation of any statutory rules. No concrete material also is placed before me even to prima facie establish that the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides. The only ground on which the petitioner W.P.(C) No.33453 of 2008 3 challenges the order of transfer is that it is issued in violation of the guidelines. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in State of U.P. and Others v. Gobardhan Lal (supra), the petitioner cannot seek implementation of guidelines in letter and spirit and seek the intervention of this Court for a direction to the respondents to retain him at Tripunithura. The Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE nj.