IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35880 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M.GIRIDHARAN, EXECUTIVE OFFICE/MANAGER SREE THIRUMITTAKKODE DEVASWOM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN C.MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY/COMMISSIONER KOZHIKODE – PIN 673001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD KOZHIKODE, PIN 673001. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN,SC,MALABAR DEVASWOM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.35880 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. Petitioner is the executive officer of a temple. He has been transferred from that place. He challenges the transfer. It appears that he has came here on an earlier round and obtained Ext.P1 judgment. The power of the second respondent Commissioner to pass an order of transfer is not under challenge. The stand of the Malabar Devaswom Board that the petitioner has served for three continuous years in the present station is also not challenged. In terms of the circulars of the MDB, officers can be shifted out after three years. Obviously, stagnation at one station is not considered to be in the best interest of any establishment. With this, all that the petitioner has is that he is a cardiac patient and has been advised to have some medicines. He also states that the Thirumittakkode temple has a few litigations in civil and criminal courts, for which, his WPC.35880/10 2 presence is necessary. It is for the establishment to take care of its litigations. As regards the submission of the petitioner that he has a school going child and a family and that he has to travel 75 kms to the new station, he can make a representation which the second respondent may consider. Beyond that, we find no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the impugned order. This writ petition is hence disposed of rejecting the request of the petitioner and without prejudice to any representation from the petitioner for deferring transfer till the end of the current academic year, which would be considered sympathetically by the second respondent. Let such representation be considered and disposed of within three weeks. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, Judge. kkb.4/12.