IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11269 of 2010(S) --------------------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER DTD. 02/03/2010 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN O.A. NO.732/09) ................. PETITIONER: ------------------- N.VIJAYAKUMAR, SENIOR AUDITOR, A/C NO.8315634 ACCOUNTS OFFICE (R & D)C/O.N P O L TRIKKAKARA P.O, COCHIN-21,RESIDING AT NIRMALYAM, OPP.NAGARJUNA FLATS, PUTHIYA ROAD,KADAVANTHARA, COCHIN-20. BY ADV. MR.BABU CHERUKARA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-11. 2. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS ULAN BATAR ROAD,PALAM,DELHI CONTT.-110 010. 3. CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS(R& D) C.V.RAMAN NAGAR,BANGALORE-92. 4. THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS(R& D),ACCOUNTS OFFICE(R& D),C/O.NPOL, TRIKKAKARA PO, COCHIN- 682 021. R1 TO R4 BY MR.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C). NO.11269 OF 2010 S --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st March, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order and also Ext.P8 order. Petitioner has been transferred to Bangalore. He is aggrieved by the same. He had filed representation and that was considered and rejected. Petitioner challenged the said order before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by Ext.P8 order has dismissed the claim. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. It is to be noted that the petitioner has been working for twentysix years out of nearly thirty years in Cochin. Transfer is an incident of service. Petitioner made application indicating his choice in respect of three Stations. It is found by the Tribunal that there are no vacancies available in those Stations. It is WP(C).NO.11269/2010 S 2 further found that the petitioner, though he worked in two spells in Andaman and Nicobar Islands were on the basis of the request claimed by the petitioner. Therefore, the substance of the matter is that the petitioner has been working for a very long period and is a senior as far as the Kerala State is concerned and is liable to be transferred. The main argument of the petitioner is that the petitioner's sister is a mental patient and she requires the presence of the petitioner. It is contended that originally the petitioner's mother was appointed as Guardian. His mother passed away. Subsequently, the only daughter of the sister was acting as Guardian. She died at the age of twentynine. Thereafter, it is stated that the petitioner has applied to the District Court and has been appointed as legal guardian. Shri Babu Cherukara, learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that Certificates has been produced to show that the sister was having mental problem. 3. The guideline relied on by the petitioner, no doubt, provides that in case of serious illnesses, some of which are WP(C).NO.11269/2010 S 3 specifically enumerated, the Authority has a discretion to consider the request of the employee. In fact, there was a request and we cannot say that the Authority has not considered it. We also notice that the Authority has specifically taken note of the request based on the mental illness of the petitioner's sister also. But, the Authority has not found it fit. Judicial review is not an appellate jurisdiction. This Court will not correct mere errors. Even if we take a different view, it will not be sufficient for us to exercise the power under Article 226 of the Constitution. In this case, the Tribunal has also not found it fit to interfere with the matter. We cannot also overlook the circumstance that the petitioner has been working for nearly twentysix years in Cochin. Petitioner's wife is working at Cochin and it is not as if, if the petitioner is transferred, there will be nobody at all. It may be open to the petitioner to take his sister with him to Bangalore where it has been noted by the Authority itself, there are better facilities or to allow the sister to continue in Cochin where the petitioner's wife is residing. WP(C).NO.11269/2010 S 4 Whatever that be, the fact remains that the petitioner has not made out a case for judicial review of the order of the Tribunal. The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge