IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/28THAGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1928 of 2011 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) No.20094/2011 DATED 21/11/2011 ............ APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: M. GAYATHRI DEVI, UPPER DIVISION CLERK, DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE, KOTTYAM - 686 002, (UNDER ORDERS OF TRANSFER TO SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA - 688 007.) BY ADV.SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN SMT.T.J.SEEMA RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 3: 1. BINOY A.M., UPPER DIVISION CLERK, SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA - 688 007. 2. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, SOUTHERN CICLE, VANASREE, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM - 691 001. 3. C. JAYACHANDRAN, LOWER DIVISION CLERK, GOVERNMENT TIMBER DEPOT, THENMALA - 691 308. (UNDER ORDERS OF TRANSFER TO SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION, ACHENCOIL). R1 BY ADV. SMT.P.V.ASHA SMT.VINEETHA B. R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.K. MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-12-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 1928 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The transfer and posting given to the appellant as per Ext.P3 was under challenge in the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent. 2. The case of the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that, the writ petitioner who was serving elsewhere had sought for a transfer to the home district and accordingly, considering the said request, the transfer and posting was given to him as per Ext.P1 order dated 22.03.2010; pursuant to which he joined duty at the station in Alappuzha on 31.03.2010. 3. While so, the concerned respondent issued Ext.P2 order of 'general transfer' order for the year 2011, on 01.06.2011. Obviously, for the reason that the writ petitioner was posted at Alappuzha as per Ext.P1 order dated 22.03.2010, he was never included in Ext.P2 General transfer. It was W.A. No. 1928 of 2011 -:2:- thereafter, that the second respondent issued Ext.P3 order dated 20.07.2011 transferring the writ petitioner to the Government Timber Depot at Thenmala, while bringing the appellant herein to the place occupied by the writ petitioner in Alappuzha, which in turn was under challenge in the writ petition. 4. The case of the writ petitioner was that, there was absolutely no rhyme or reason for having shifted the writ petitioner from the post at Alappuzha, as it was never passed in the exigency of service, but for yielding to the request made by the appellant herein, who was virtually evading the transfer whenever she was ordered to be posted elsewhere. It was also stated in Ext.P3 order, that all the other persons therein, but for the writ petitioner and another person, the transfer was on their request; including the case of the appellant who was brought back to Alappuzha. The transfer ordered in respect of the writ petitioner is stated as pursuant to the 'administrative exigencies'. 5. The contention of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that, the writ petition was filed without revealing the entire facts and events and that he was serving the home district at Alappuzha for quite so many years, by virtue of W.A. No. 1928 of 2011 -:3:- the posting in parent department as well as elsewhere, by way of deputation. The factual position that he was continuing on deputation at Alappuzha for several years has not been brought out and it was in the said circumstance, that the matter required to be reconsidered, especially in the light of the request made by the appellant leading to Ext.P3 order; which according to the appellant, is in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. It is also stated that there is no plea of malafides, nor the same has been sought to be established by tangible evidence and as such, the Ext.P3 transfer order passed ought not to have been intercepted by the learned Single Judge under any circumstance. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length, who reiterated the submissions made before the learned Single Judge, as already taken note of in the judgment under challenge. The fact remains that the appellant was earlier transferred to Kottayam as per the orders issued by the concerned respondent. But, she did not choose to discharge the duties at Kottayam and proceeded on 'leave without allowances' for the period from 05.03.2010 to 07.07.2011. She joined the Divisional Forest Office at Kottayam only on 08.07.2011 and W.A. No. 1928 of 2011 -:4:- immediately obtained Ext.P3 order dated 20.07.2011, pursuant to her request to have a posting at Alappuzha. 7. The factual position with regard to the tenure at Alappuzha and other stations in respect of the service of the writ petitioner as well as the appellant herein have been meticulously analysed by the learned Single Judge. It has been observed that, the writ petitioner was given a posting pursuant to his request for home station posting, only in the year 2010 and even without completion of the tenure at the home station, the writ petitioner was sought to be shifted as per Ext.P3; despite the fact that no 'administrative exigency' was there when the General Transfer was issued vide Ext.P2 and the writ petitioner was never included therein. The learned Judge also observed that, the appellant, despite the transfer to Kottayam, was not actually working there, who otherwise proceeded on long leave and joined duty only on 08.07.2011, just to accept Ext.P3 transfer order, which otherwise she was expecting for. It was in the said circumstance, that a positive finding was rendered that the transfer ordered in respect of the writ petitioner vide Ext.P3 was by way of colourable exercise of power and was intercepted. W.A. No. 1928 of 2011 -:5:- 8. The challenge raised by the appellant in respect of the finding and reasoning given by the learned Single Judge is not supported by any valid or sustainable grounds. We find it difficult to accept the proposition of the appellant that, the tenure of the writ petitioner by virtue of the posting at Alappuzha on deputation is also to be counted for the purpose of transfer, as the relevant rules/Government Orders issued in this regard with regard to the norms of transfer do not reckon the service by way of deputation and the Station seniority has to be reckoned on the basis of the actual service in the parent department. In the above circumstance, we find no tenable ground to interfere with the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge. The Appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb