IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 WA.No. 1566 of 2011() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.20502/2011 Dated 27/07/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): --------------------- M.HAKKIM, SUB REGISTRAR (UNDER ORDER OF TRANSFER), OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-696 001. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, INSPECTORATE OF REGISTRATION, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035. 3. THULASI DAS M., SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, ENADIMANGALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-691 524. R1 AND R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.LIJU V.STEPHEN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag. CJ. & P.S.GOPINATHAN, J ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1566 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, Ag.CJ. The challenge is only against Exhibit P12 order confirmed by the learned Single Judge, whereunder the third respondent is transferred to a station near to his house. It is seen that as on the date of the judgment, i.e., in July, 2011, the third respondent had only eight months to retire and as of now he has only four months. 2. The grievance of the appellant is that he was initially transferred to the place where the third respondent is now transferred and so much so, he is entitled to join there. 3. After hearing counsel for the appellant, we do not find any ground for interference, because whatever be the ground entitling the appellant for transfer to the station, wherein the third respondent is now working, we do not think, the third respondent, who is left with four months to retire, should be disturbed. WA.1566/11 2 Accordingly, we dismiss the Writ Appeal. However, if the appellant is entitled to a posting after retirement of the third respondent to that station, it would be open to respondents 1 and 2 to give transfer to the appellant in the place of the third respondent on his retirement. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE vgs