IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6677 of 2010(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.H.ALI, S/O.HAMSA, HEAD WARDEN, SUB JAIL, MOOVATTUPUZHA, RESIDING AT PUTHIYATHOTTI HOUSE, NANGELIPADY, NELLIKUZHY P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGIE SIMON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (PRISONS), POOJAPURA, TRIVANDRUM. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF SUB JAIL, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ARAVIND KUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.6677 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Head Warder at Muvattupuzha Sub Jail. He has been transferred to Aluva Sub Jail as per Ext.P3 order dated 19.2.2010. He was earlier transferred to Central Prison, Viyyur against which he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.1501 of 2010. This Court, as per Ext.P1 judgment dated 15.1.2010 disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the petitioner to submit a representation to the first respondent detailing his grievances. In paragraph 3 of the judgment, this Court held thus: “3. A reading of Ext.P1 shows that the transfer of the petitioner has been made on the ground of public interest. Transfer is an incidence of service. The Government has the right to decide how to deploy its employees so as to derive the maximum benefit of their services. The petitioner has no allegations of malafides against his transfer. He also does not dispute the competency of the transferring authority. The transfer also cannot be said to be in violation of any rules. In view of the above I find no grounds to interfere with the order of transfer.” W.P.(C) NO. 6677/2010 2 2. In view of the said categoric finding in Ext.P1, Ext.P3 order of transfer cannot be interfered with by this Court. True, as per Ext.P1, a direction was issued to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation filed by the petitioner. In compliance of the direction contained in Ext.P1 judgment, the representation filed by the petitioner was considered and Ext.P3 order was issued. No case has been made out by the petitioner warranting interference with Ext.P3 order of transfer, especially in the light of the following statement contained therein: “It is noticed that Sri., P.H. Ali, Head Warder did not obey the order of transfer and absented from duty unauthorizedly. However a lenient view is taken in the matter, since he is due to retire from service on 31st March 2011, Sri. P.H. Ali, Head Warder is transferred and posted as such in Sub Jail, Aluva, which is 36 kilometres away from Sub Jail, Muvattupuzha.” In the circumstances, after going through the reasons given in Ext.P3 and also in the light of Ext.P1, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot succeed in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ W.P.(C) NO. 6677/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO. 6677/2010 JUDGMENT 2nd March, 2010 W.P.(C) NO. 6677/2010 4