IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 20099 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.DEVARAJA KUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. SATHYAVARTHAN, VYSAKH, THANNIMOOD P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, (VIA) ARALUMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, WORKING AS BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, OACHIRA BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, OACHIRA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.B.S.SIVAJI SRI.V.R.SWAMINATHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMISSIONER, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, L.M.S.COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. V.SUDESAN, BDO, BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, IDUKKI. 4. JOHNSON PREMKUMAR, BDO, BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, CHITTUMALA. ADV. SRI.V.B.NARAYANAN FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKATH FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the request for transfer submitted by the petitioner before the Ist respondent. Ext.P2. True relevant extract of the draft list for General Transfer prepared by the Ist respondent. Ext.P3. True copy of General Transfer List finalized by the Ist respondent. Ext.P4. True copy of the transfer order on 13.7.2009 issued by the Ist respondent. 3rd Respondent's Exhibits. Ext.R3(a). True copy of the guidelines/ Norms of transfer working under Local Self Government Department. Ext.R3(b). True copy of the service details of the petitioner issued by the Asst. Development Commissioner Ext.R3(c) True copy of the Circular dated 28.1.2009 in respect of general transfer. Ext,.R3(d) True copy of the list of transfer of BDO/BPO for the year 2008. Ext.R3(e) True copy of the application for transfer. ExtR3(f). True copy of the transfer and posting order dated 13.7.2009. Ext.R3(g) True copy of the relieving order dated 16.7.2009 of the petitioner. Ext.3(h) True copy of the letter dated 17.7.2009 issued by the Asst. Development Commissioner Ist respondent's Exhibits. Ext.R1(a). True copy of the G.O.(MS).NO.105/07/LSGD dt. 4.4.2007. Ext.R1(b) true copy of the G.O.(MS)No.54/08/LSGD dt.3.3.2008. // true copy // P.A to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 20099 OF 2009 (F) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was working at Parassala as Joint BDO from 16.11.2007. He was promoted as BDO and was posted to Ochira with effect from 6.8.2008 and he joined duty there on 8.8.2008. While so continuing, he submitted Ext.P1 request for transfer to any of the three stations in Thiruvananthapuram District which are mentioned therein. That was not considered and in the meanwhile Ext.P2 draft list of general transfer was issued. 2. In the draft list, in so far as the 3rd respondent is concerned, it was stated that, there was no vacancy at any of the opted stations to consider the request made by him for transfer. In Ext.P2 petitioner's name was also not included for the reason that he had not completed one year at the transferred station viz. Ochira. However, when Ext.P3 general transfer order was issued in July, 2009, petitioner was transferred and posted to Idukki and the 3rd respondent working in Idukki was transferred and posted in his place. Consequent on Ext.P3, Ext.P4 order was issued implementing the transfer. It was complaining of the WPC.No.20099 /09 :2 : transfer as above, the writ petition is filed. 3. The contention raised is mainly that the transfer order is against the norms governing transfer, a copy of which is produced as Ext.R1(a). It is also submitted that, BDO having more than 3 years are retained in Kollam District, so that if at all anyone is to be transferred to accommodate the 3rd respondent, persons who are liable to be transferred ought to have been disturbed and not the petitioner. It is also the contention that the 3rd respondent did not even complete two years at Idukki to request for transfer. 4. However, from the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2 and the 3rd respondent, what emerges is that the transfer of the 3rd respondent has been effected in terms of Ext.R1(a) guidelines as clarified by Ext.R1(b), Government order. From Ext.R1(a) it can be seen that transfers made otherwise than on option are compulsory transfers and the period of compulsory transfer shall be one year of duty. A reading of the guidelines also show that a person compulsorily transferred and completed one year, is eligible to opt for transfer. In so far as this case is concerned, as is seen from pleadings, it is evident that the 3rd respondent admittedly had completed one year of service at WPC.No.20099 /09 :3 : Idukki and his transfer to Idukki was also a compulsory transfer. It is stated that when Ext.P2 draft was published the 3rd respondent filed his objections, which was considered and he was included in Exts.P3 general transfer order and was transferred to Ochira from where the petitioner is transferred to Idukki. In the light of the facts as emerging from the pleading, it cannot be said that there is any violation of the guidelines in the matter of transfer fof the 3rd respondent and if that be so, this court will not be justified in interfering with the transfer ordered by the authorities. 5. Petitioner has a case that he had not completed even one year at Ochira and therefore he ought not have been transferred. However, this contention of the petitioner stands contradicted by Ext.R1(b) which clarified Ext.R1(a) transfer guidelines. Ext.R1(b) states that whenever promotions take place, promoted persons may be sent to places where vacancies exist and that if senior persons are eligible to be posted to the places where promotees are posted, promotees may be considered along with the seniors in the general transfer. From this it is evident that the petitioner who was posted at Ochira on promotion was liable for transfer, as WPC.No.20099 /09 :4 : the 3rd respondent had completed one year of duty on compulsory transfer and is his senior. Therefore, I cannot find any irregularity in the transfer. That apart, if the petitioner has any grievance in so far as the transfer is concerned he also has a remedy of appeal under clause 28 of Edt.R1(a) guidelines. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submits that a vacancy of BDO is to arise at Parassala since the present incumbent Sri. Kumaresan is to be promoted as Assistant Development Commissioner. In case any such vacancy is to arise, it will be open to the petitioner to make a request for posting in that vacancy, in which case his claim will be considered in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/