IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WPC.No. 31722 of 2011 (M) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- GOSALAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.VELAPPAN NAIR,MANAGER, ATTINGAL BRANCH, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, RESIDING AT MADHAVAM,KORANI P.O., CHEMPAKAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, BHADRATHA, THRISSUR-680 020 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD, CORPORATE OFFICE, BHADRATHA, THRISSUR-680 020 3. RAJ K.L.,MANAGER, LOAN UNIT, KOTTAYAM, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD (UNDER ORDERS OF TRANSFER TO ATTINGAL BRANCH), KERALA STATE FIANANCIAL ENTERPIRSES LIMITED).PIN-686 001 R1 & R2 BY ADV.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH R3 BY ADV.SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-12-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.31722/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES(1,2&8) OF THE ORDER REF.NO.4307 DATED 25/7/2011. P2 COPY OF THE ORDER REF.NO.4307 DATED 17/11/2011 P3 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15/11/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.31722 of 2011. = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st December, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner, a Branch Manager of the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., ('KSFE' for short) has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2 order of transfer. As per Ext.P2, he has been transferred from Attingal to Kattappana. According to the petitioner, he had been working at the Internal Audit Department stationed at Thiruvananthapuram. While so, as per Ext.P1 order of general transfer dated 25.7.2011, the petitioner was transferred and posted to Attingal on his request. Pursuant to Ext.P1 he joined duty on 10.8.2011. It was hardly three months thereafter that the petitioner has been transferred to Kattappana as per Ext.P3. According to the petitioner, his present transfer is absolutely without any justification. Therefore, he has filed this writ petition challenging the said order of transfer. 2. Advocate E.K.Nandakumar represents respondents WP(C).No.31722/2011. 2 1 and 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. As per the statement, the petitioner has been transferred for the reason that the Attingal branch of KSFE has not been able to achieve the target that was set for the said branch. The above is clear from Ext.P3 communication also wherein the petitioner has been informed that the failure on the part of the branch to attain the target is seriously viewed by the management. 3. However, the counsel for the petitioner points out that as evident from Ext.P1 he had been transferred to Attingal only on 25.7.2011. Pursuant thereto he has joined duty there only on 10.8.2011. During the limited period of three months that he had served at the said branch, he has canvassed business to the tune of Rs.26.7 lakhs. For the above reason, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason for his transfer is unacceptable. 4. Advocate K.P.Rajeevan appears for the third respondent. The third respondent has filed a counter- affidavit contending that he is a person who had been WP(C).No.31722/2011. 3 seeking a transfer to some place in Thiruvananthapuram. He had requested for a posting to any one of the offices at Thiruvananthapuram. According to the counsel for the third respondent, his client is a much better candidate to be posted to the branch at Attingal. Therefore, it is contended that there are no grounds to interfere with Ext.P2 order of transfer. 5. I have heard the counsel for the contesting parties at length. I have also considered the rival contentions anxiously. 6. It is to be noted that the petitioner has been posted to Attingal only as per Ext.P1 order of general transfer dated 25.7.2011. It is also to be noted that the transfer had been granted to the petitioner on his request. However, as per Ext.P2 order dated 17.11.2011 he has been transferred from Attingal to Kattappana. According to respondents 1 and 2, his transfer was for the reason that the Attingal branch had not been able to achieve the target that has set for the said branch. In view of the fact that the petitioner had joined the WP(C).No.31722/2011. 4 branch only on 10.8.2011, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for any laxity in achieving the target by the entire branch. He can be held liable only for the period from 10.8.2011 to 17.11.2011. However, as evident from Ext.P3, it is the petitioner who has been held responsible for the lapse on the part of his predecessors in his office also. Though the petitioner has contended that he has achieved business to the tune of Rs.26.7 lakhs within the short period that he had worked at the Attingal branch, the same has not been denied by respondents 1 and 2. In view of the above, it has to be held that the transfer of the petitioner as per Ext.P2 is without any justification. The same has therefore to be set aside. 7. The counsel for the third respondent submits that the third respondent is a person who has requested for a posting to one of the offices at Thiruvananthapuram, but he has been posted at Attingal. Since it has been found that the transfer of the petitioner out of Attingal is without any justification, the third respondent cannot stake a claim for WP(C).No.31722/2011. 5 continued posting at Attingal. He would have to be accommodated at some other place at Thiruvananthapuram by respondents 1 and 2. The third respondent cannot claim that he should be retained at Attingal in preference to the petitioner. 8. For the above reasons, this writ petition is ordered as follows: (i) Ext.P2 order to the extent it transfers the petitioner from Attingal to Kattappana is set aside. (ii) The petitioner shall be retained at Attingal. (iii) Respondents 1 and 2 shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders giving a posting to the third respondent. (iv) The writ petition is allowed as above. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-