IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 23238 of 2010(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- S.ANILKUMAR, INSPECTOR OF POLICE (TELECOMMUNICATION), ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE CRIME RECORD BUREAU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, (TELECOMMUNICATION),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. D.ANAND,INSPECTOR OF POLICE (TELECOMMUNICATION),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, TRIVANDRUM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RANI DYOTHIMA, R4 BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.23238/2010-D: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER S.O. NO.23/2010/TELE. DTD. 19/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE R.3. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. S.O.NO.25/2010/TELE. DTD. 25/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. DGO.NO.299/2010 DTD. 12/04/2010 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. DGO NO.382/2010 DTD. 05/05/2010 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 07/05/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 11/06/2010 IN W.P.9C).NO.14634/10 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 09/07/2010 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DTD. 30/03/2010. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM VIZ. MATHRUBHOOME DTD. 03/06/2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF POLICE ESTABLISHMENT BOARD. EXT.R4.A: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.T4/69200/2002 DTD. 02/08/2003 OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ADDRESSED TO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (POLITICAL DEPARTMENT) GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXT.R4.B: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G8-33453/2008/TC DTD. 11/11/2008. EXT.R4.C: COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER NO.G8/27898/2010/TC DTD. 10/06/2010 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY. EXT.R4.D: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A2-3173/2009/SCRB DTD. 26/01/2010. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.23238 Of 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010 J U D G M E N T The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by Exhibits P4 and P7 orders concerning non-consideration of his grievances against the transfer. 2. The petitioner is working as Inspector of Police (Telecommunication) and he was promoted as such by order dated 21.5.2009 and was posted in the Kozhikode City on 21.5.2009. The petitioner was transferred to Thiruvananthapuram as per Exhibit P1 order. This order was kept in abeyance by Exhibit P2 order and later a composite order for promotion and transfer was issued as per Exhibit P3, whereby the petitioner was transferred to Thiruvananthapuram Rural instead of Thiruvananthapuram City and he joined therein on 26.4.2010. The petitioner was later on transferred by Exhibit P4 order to Alappuzha to accommodate one Shri B.Mohanakumaran Nair, who was transferred to Thiruvananthapuram. He was relieved from duties on 6.5.2010. Alleging various violations of the norms of transfer, the petitioner filed Exhibit P5 W.P.(C)No.23238/10 -2- representation and this Court by Exhibit P6 judgment directed the competent authority to consider the representation and Exhibit P7 is the order rejecting the representation. 3. What is mentioned in Exhibit P7 is that seniority is not the sole criteria for transfer and his request for transfer to Thiruvananthapuram District is not considered now. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is only to retain the 4th respondent in Thiruvananthapuram- who is junior to him- the petitioner was transferred to Alappuzha. It is further pointed out that the 4th respondent is the office bearer of an Association and that alone favoured him for getting a posting in Thiruvananthapuram in preference to the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that the 4th respondent was promoted as per Exhibit P3 order and was retained in Thiruvananthapuram. The 4th respondent is also having more outside service and the petitioner has been working in Thiruvananthapuram for a number of years, and had gone out only at the time of promotion in 2009. 6. The counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 3 shows that Shri B.Mohanakumaran Nair submitted a request before the W.P.(C)No.23238/10 -3- Police Establishment Board for a transfer to Thiruvananthapuram on retirement concession. He is due to retire from service on 31.3.2012 and the Police Establishment Board in the meeting held on 26.4.2010 examined his request and considered his request on retirement concession. Accordingly, he was transferred to Thiruvananthapuram Rural and the petitioner to Alappuzha. The allegation raised by the petitioner that it was only to favour the 4th respondent that he was transferred is denied also. 7. Evidently,therefore, the petitioner's transfer is due to the concession given to Shri B.Mohanakumaran Nair which is evident from Exhibit P4 order also. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, the petitioner has no challenge in Exhibit P3 order whereby the 4th respondent was promoted and posted in Thiruvananthapuram. Further, it is seen from the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 3 that the petitioner was working in Thiruvananthapuram District for a period of 20 years and more. He was transferred to Kozhikode after promotion in the year 2009. W.P.(C)No.23238/10 -4- 8. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the transfer of the petitioner is due to extraneous and malafide reasons, I am not satisfied that the contentions are correct. Evidently, it is only to accommodate Shri B.Mohanakumaran Nair, the petitioner has been shifted by Exhibit P4 order. Admittedly, the said Officer is his senior also, and he is retiring within two years. In that view of the matter, there is no illegality or irregularity in Exhibit P4. Therefore the Writ Petition is dismissed. But this will not stand in the way of the authorities considering the request of the petitioner for accommodating him in Thiruvananthapuram District in any other vacancy arising in future. Sd/- ( T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn