IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 23542 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- RAJESH.S. SENIOR ASSISTANT ,K.S.E.B ANTI POWER THEFT SQUAD,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN, ADV. SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (K.S.E.B IN SHORT) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN,PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (H.R.M) K.S.E.B, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB FOR R1 & R2. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.N.Ravindran, J. ===================== W.P(C).No.23542 of 2008 ===================== Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner, a Senior Assistant in the service of the Kerala State Electricity Board is aggrieved by his transfer from Kottayam to Vadakara. Ext.P2 is the order of transfer. Aggrieved by Ext.P2, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 representation seeking a transfer to Ernakulam Circle. He thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.16222 of 2008. By Ext.P4 judgment delivered on 30.5.2008, this Court directed the Chief Engineer to consider whether the petitioner can be accommodated in a district nearer to Kottayam. Such a direction was issued taking note of the fact that the petitioner's wife is employed in Kottayam District and also the fact that his child is hardly 18 months old. By Ext.P5 order passed on 7.7.2008 the said request was rejected. The petitioner has again approached this Court challenging Ext.P5. The petitioner contends that a large number of persons have been engaged on contract basis to work as Senior Assistant in Kottayam Circle and that his transfer from Kottayam to Vadakara is arbitrary and illegal. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the second respondent contending that the sanctioned strength of Senior Assistants in Kottayam Circle is 96 and that as against the sanctioned strength of 96, 125 Senior WP(C)23542/08 -: 2 :- Assistants were working in Kottayam District. It is also submitted that six persons were eligible to be transferred to Kottayam Circle in accordance with the guidelines. The respondents submit that 35 Senior Assistants were therefore transferred out by Ext.P2. As regards 16 persons said to be working on contract basis in Kottayam Circle, it is stated that steps have been taken to terminate their services and that they were engaged for a specific period only. 3. When this Writ Petition came up on an earlier occasion this Court had directed the respondents to consider whether the petitioner can be accommodated in the nearby Circle in Ernakulam District. In the statement filed on 25.8.2008 on behalf of the second respondent, it is stated that in Ernakulam Circle also, there are excess hands and therefore, there is no vacancy to accommodate the petitioner at present in Ernakulam Circle. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. The guidelines governing transfer do not confer any enforceable right on the employee. This Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere with anorder of transfer unless it is shown that the order was passed by an incompetent authority or that it is violative of any statutory rule or is shown to be one vitiated by malafides and rested on extraneous considerations. In the instant case, the petitioner does not allege any malafides against the transferring authority. Nor has the WP(C)23542/08 -: 3 :- petitioner been able to point out any violation of the statutory rules. The petitioner has also no case that the order of transfer was passed by an incompetent authority. 5. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the challenge to Exts.P2 and P5. The Writ Petition accordingly fails and it is dismissed. I make it clear that the dismissal of this Writ Petition will not be a bar for the petitioner from moving the respondents at a later stage seeking a transfer to another station. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 26/8