IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15899 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ S.ANSALAM, S/O.S.SAMUEL, AGED 48 YEARS, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, K.S.R.T.C., PATHANAMTHITTA (UNDER TRANSFER) AND RESIDING AT PRANAVAM, ELAMANNOOR, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFFICER, KSRTC, MALAPPURAM. BY SC ADV. SRI. K. PRABHAKARAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 15899 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner calls in question Ext.P4 and seeks a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to retain the petitioner at Pathanamthitta Depot. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: Petitioner is working as Special Assistant under the second respondent. He came to be relieved along with other staff on deputation to attend a training at Staff Training Centre, Thiruvananthapuram as evidenced by Ext.P2. It was an one day training. After the training, by Ext.P3 memo he came to be relieved on 23.5.2008 and directed to report for duty at Pathanamthitta. On 24.5.2008 he was served with Ext.P4 memo. Ext.P4 is seen issued by the Assistant Transport Officer. It is seen from Ext.P4 that the petitioner is transferred and relieved with effect from 23.5.2008 with direction to report at the concerned unit at Malappuram. It is stated that the transfer to Malappuram is on administrative grounds. Immediately upon receipt of the same, petitioner preferred Ext.P5 dated 24.5.2008. Therein he requested that the order transferring him to Malappuram on administrative ground may be given effect to from the afternoon of WPC. 15899/2008. 2 31.5.2008 as is done in similar cases. It is stated that he would not get salary for the month of May if relieved on 24.5.2008. It is the case of the petitioner that this reasonable request of the petitioner was not granted. Ext.P6 is the transfer guidelines. 2. I heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri.N.Unnikrishnan. He would point out that the petitioner is afflicted with Polio and he is orthopaedically handicapped to the extent of 50% and above. It is further submitted that there is no authority in the Assistant Transport Officer to transfer the petitioner and that the authority is vested with the Managing Director, who is the appointing authority and it is delegated to the Executive Director (Administration). He further submits that as per Ext.P6 guidelines Clause 11 provides that when administrative ground is the reason for transfer, reasons should normally be stated in the order and it is stated that the transfer on administrative grounds will be reviewed. It is pointed out that no reasons are stated in Ext.P4. He further submits that going by the guidelines transfer is to be based on principle of seniority and there are two seniors working from 1998 onwards. He also submits that there are other vacancies which are in nearby areas. He submits that the transfer is done with effect from 23.5.2008, that is retrospectively. WPC. 15899/2008. 3 3. As far as the contention regarding lack of authority is concerned, counsel appearing for the respondents pointed out that Ext.P4 memo is issued by the Assistant Transport Officer only as a consequential order based on the order which is read in Ext.P4. Learned counsel obtained the order by Fax. That is an order issued by the Personnel Manager in charge of the Managing Director. In such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no authority with the Assistant Transport Officer may not really hold good. Learned counsel for the respondents also points out that the petitioner has been suspended four times and censure was ordered. I cannot overlook the request made by the petitioner himself in Ext.P5. In Ext.P5 it is categorically stated as follows: “Kindly consider these two aspects and given effect the relieving order with effect from the AN of 31.5.2008.” Mere violation of the guidelines may not arm this court with jurisdiction to interfere in a transfer matter. Therefore, I find no ground to interfere with the order of transfer. But I make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to bring his grievances about the violation of the guidelines to the concerned authority, in which case, the concerned authority will look into it and take a decision thereon in accordance with law. Having regard to the facts of this case, I further direct that the petitioner will not be relieved till 31.5.2008. WPC. 15899/2008. 4 Subject to the same, the writ petition is dismissed. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb