IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 37149 of 2008(V) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- K.J. CHERIAN, CLERK, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER MARKETING FEDERATION LTD., HEAD OFFICE, KADAVANTHARA, COCHIN -20, RESIDING AT KANNAMPILLIL HOUSE, KUREEKAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SRI.SIJI ANTONY RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER MARKETING FEDERATION LTD., NO. 4331, KOCHI -20, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE PRESIDENT, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. 4331, KOCHI -20. 3. THE REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETEIS, GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURM. ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) FOR R1-2 SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI FOR R1-2 SRI.MANU TOM FOR R1-2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.37149 of 2008-V = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.Petitioner, a clerk working in the Head Office of the first respondent, an apex co-operative society, has been transferred as per Ext.P1 to its Sales Depot in Calcutta. The petitioner challenges that order on the ground that the said transfer will visit him and his family with untold misery and hardship. He points out that in 1997, he had donated one of his kidneys to his brother Babu and thereafter, both of them had been on continuous requirement of medical help off and on. It is further pointed out that the petitioner's children are studying in Ernakulam or nearby areas and his wife is permanently employed in a private limited company and that he has also to take care of his aged mother. These personal reasons are projected in the context of WP(C)37149/2008 -: 2 :- the fact that the impugned Ext.P1 transfer order is issued on 9-12-2008 in the midst of an academic year. 2.Respondents 1 and 2 contend that the impugned transfer is made solely on administrative exigencies and in the better interest of the petitioner and that even the petitioner had understood the need for his transfer and had applied for extension of time to join Calcutta. Accordingly, it is pointed out that even the petitioner had recognized the interest of the establishment for the transfer of the petitioner to man the Calcutta Sales Depot. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 points out that no vitiating element could be established on Ext.P1 order of transfer and that the petitioner has been identified as the one who needs to be placed in Calcutta to augment the activities of that sales depot in view of the insufficiency of the abilities of P.G.Varghesekutty who is under orders of transfer out of Calcutta to Malappuram, WP(C)37149/2008 -: 3 :- though that order of transfer has been stayed till the end of the current academic year by an interim order passed by this Court in WP(C). 18922/2008 on 10-12-2008. 3.Ext.P1 is issued in relation to four persons. They are not mutual transfers and are not made merely for accommodating any person in any particular unit. Sri.M.V.Bashi, Technical Officer has been transferred to Mumbai Sales Depot from the Head Office with the direction to join at the earliest. The petitioner, a clerk has been transferred from the Head Office to Calcutta Sales Depot with instructions to join at the earliest. Sri.O.T.Ramachandran Nair has been shifted from Fertilizer Section to Rubber Section as Deputy Manager (Purchase). Sri.George John working as Field Officer in Kottayam is transferred to the Head Office as Assistant Manager (Fertilizer). Ex facie, Ext.P1 is a managerial exercise evidently for administrative reasons. The yardsticks for judicial review of WP(C)37149/2008 -: 4 :- such an action have always to be remembered that in the absence of a demonstrable case of malice, malafides, arbitrariness or administrative perversity actuating an administrative decision like transfer of an employee, it would be imprudent for the writ court to step in even if the personal situations of an individual may call for a compassionate approach. Even at the time of considering this case for the first time, it was directed on 18-12-2008 that the petitioner may work out his remedies in the meanwhile, before the respondents. It is stated that the petitioner moved before the first respondent President, however that, it has been decided by the establishment that the petitioner be relieved from Ernakulam and that he has been since relieved. Though respondents 2 and 3 have a specific plea that this writ petition would not lie touching service matters, including transfer since the first respondent is a co-operative society, that plea is not being examined in detail, having regard to the conclusions already WP(C)37149/2008 -: 5 :- arrived at. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground to enter on a judicial review and grant any relief to the petitioner. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/160109