IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 24635 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ G.SUKUMARI AMMA, SALES SUPERIVISOR KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KANNUR -1, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 2. REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,REGIONAL OFFICE, NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1-2 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R1-2 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R1-2 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R1-2 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R1-2 SRI.V.J.ANAND FOR R1-2 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.Ravindran, J. ===================== W.P(C).No.24635 of 2008 ===================== Dated this the 1th day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Sales Supervisor in the service of the Kerala State Handloom Development Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation" for short. By Ext.P5 order passed on 21.5.2008, the Managing Director of the Corporation transferred the petitioner from the Regional Office at Thiruvananthapuram and posted her as Sales Supervisor in the marketing wing of the Head Office of the Corporation at Kannur. Aggrieved by Ext.P5, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation before the Principal Secretary to Government, Industries Department pointing out that there are many Sales Supervisors continuing in Thiruvananthapuram for more than 10 to 15 years and that she has been transferred out even before the completion of four years at Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner thereafter filed W.P.(C)No.15622 of 2008 in this Court challenging Ext.P5 order of transfer. By Ext.P7 judgment delivered on 30.5.2008, this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition with the following observations: "It is true that the petitioner has considerable difficulties by reason of her transfer from Thiruvananthapuram to Kannur. But it is also true that the administrative exigencies may sometimes require the WP(C) 24635/08 -: 2 :- transfer. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that two persons, who have more than 15 years of service, and working as Sales Supervisors with the first respondent, are retained at Thiruvananthapuram District. It is not as if the work of a Sales Supervisor requires any specific talents, which compels the first respondent, Corporation to specifically requisition the services of the petitioner at Kannur. In my view, these matters are ideally to be considered by the Government before which Ext.P6 representation is pending. First respondent being a Government Company, it is always open to the Government to take note of the alleged impropriety and to issue suitable directions to the Company as such. 5.In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to consider Ext.P6, hear the petitioner and a representative of the first respondent and take appropriate decision thereon. In the circumstances where the petitioner is currently at Thiruvananthapuram, she shall not be relieved therefrom pending decision on Ext.P6. Government shall pass orders on Ext.P6 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment." 2. As directed by this Court, the Principal Secretary to Government, Industries Department heard the petitioner on 19.7.2008. Thereafter by Ext.P9 letter dated 30.7.2008 the Government informed the petitioner as follows: "In compliance with the orders contained in the aforesaid WP(C), Government heard the petitioner on 19.7.08 in the presence of the Managing Director, Hanveev, WP(C) 24635/08 -: 3 :- the 1st respondent in Writ Ptition. Government after examining the circumstances that lead to issue Ext.P5 order, found that it was on the basis of the existing and accepted transfer policy prevailing in Hanveev and there is no need to review or revoke the Ext.P5 transfer order issued by the Managing Director Hanveev on 21.5.08. Necessary directions have been issued to the petitioner to comply with Ext.P5 transfer order forthwith." The petitioner has in this Writ Petition challenged Exts.P5 and P9 on various grounds. The petitioner contends that the order of transfer has been passed on extraneous considerations and that it is the outcome of a malafide exercise of power. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a number of Sales Supervisors though junior to the petitioner in service, have been continuing at Thiruvananthapuram for the past nearly two decades and the petitioner alone was transferred out. The petitioner further contends that the Government have not while disposing of Ext.P6 representation taken note of the said fact or the observations made by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment to the effect that the work of a Sales Supervisor does not require any specific talents which compels the Corporation to transfer the petitioner from Thiruvananthapuram to Kannur. 3. Per contra, Sri.A.K.Jayasankar Nambiar, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 contends that the transfer is an essential condition of service and that unless the petitioner shows that the order of transfer is passed in violation of the statutory rules or by an WP(C) 24635/08 -: 4 :- incompetent authority or that it is the outcome of a malafide exercise of power, this Court cannot in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution interfere with the order of transfer. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 also submitted that the services of the petitioner who is a Senior Sales Supervisor having wealth of experience were required at Kannur as the academic year was about to begin and school uniforms are marketed through the State from Kannur. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 also contended that the guidelines governing transfer are only for guidance and do not confer on the employee an enforceable right. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. It is evident from Ext.P7 judgment of this Court that this Court wanted a third party, namely, the Principal Secretary to Government, Industries Department to decide on the validity of Ext.P5 order of transfer. Though the petitioner was heard on 19.7.2008 pursuant to the said direction, Ext.P9 communication issued by the Principal Secretary to Government does not indicate that the contentions urged by the petitioner were considered on their merits. Apart from merely stating that Ext.P5 order of transfer was issued based on the existing transfer policy prevailing in the Corporation, the Principal Secretary to Government has not bestowed his attention to or dealt with any of the material contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext.P6. 5. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on either side, and WP(C) 24635/08 -: 5 :- on an examination of the pleadings and materials made available in this case, I am of the considered opinion that the grievance voiced by the petitioner in Ext.P6 did not receive serious attention at the hands of the third respondent. The third respondent also did not take note of the observations made by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment. In the result, I quash Ext.P9 and direct the third respondent, the Principal Secretary to Government, Industries Department to pass fresh orders in the matter within two weeks from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment along a copy of the Writ Petition. The Principal Secretary to Government shall advert to the various contentions raised by the petitioner and pass a speaking order in the matter within the aforesaid time limit of two weeks. The third respondent shall also afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard before orders are passed. The petitioner shall be informed of the date of hearing on the date on which she presents a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition before the third respondent. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 1/9