IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31428 of 2011(C) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.I.BHASKARAN, S/O.IYYER, AGED 54 YEARS, COMMANDANT, ARMED RESERVE, KOCHI CITY. BY ADV. SRI.R.DIVAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPLE SECRETARY TO GOVERMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- PIN- 695 001. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN- 695 001. 3. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN- 695 001. 4. SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 49 YEARS, COMMANDANT, ARMED RESERVE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY .PIN-695 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.LIJU STEPHEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.31428/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.28.10.2011. EXT.P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(P) NO.12/4/P&ARD DT.10.9.2004. EXT.P3 THE TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION TO THE IST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER DT.29.10.2011. EXT.P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.4.11.2011. EXT.P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DT.19.11.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.31428 of 2011-C. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th November, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as a Commandant of the Armed Reserve Police, Kochi City. According to the petitioner, he has only 17 months more to retire from service. He is a native of Cherai near Ernakulam and his wife is employed at Cherai. His two children are studying there. The petitioner also belongs to a Scheduled Caste. He has filed this writ petition, being aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of transfer dated 28.10.2011. By the said order, the petitioner has been transferred and posted as Commandant of the Armed Reserve Police at Thiruvananthapuram City. 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P1 order is a mutual transfer among the petitioner and the fourth respondent. Therefore, it is contended that such mutual transfer made without his consent is unsustainable. The petitioner also contended that his transfer is in violation WP(C).No.31428/2011-C. 2 of the guidelines for transfer, Ext.P2. The petitioner had earlier filed WP(C).No.29015/2011 challenging his transfer. The same has been disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment directing the first respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner against his transfer and to pass orders thereon. Accordingly, Ext.P5 order has been passed, rejecting his representation. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging Ext.P5. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has settled at Ernakulam, his wife is working in a bank and his children are studying in the schools at Ernakulam. He has only 17 months more to retire from service. Further, it is contended that the present transfer is a mutual transfer without his consent. It is also pointed out that Ext.P5 has been passed without considering his grievances. 4. The learned Govt.Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that there are only two posts of Commandants in the State. One is at Ernakulam and the other is at WP(C).No.31428/2011-C. 3 Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner had been posted at Ernakulam from 11.9.2006 to 17.9.2010. On 17.9.2010 he was promoted as Commandant and was retained at Ernakulam. Since the petitioner and the fourth respondent are the only two Commandants in the State of Kerala and since there are only two such posts in the State, the transfer of the petitioner cannot be termed as a mutual transfer. The same is only on administrative convenience and public interest. 5. I have considered the rival contentions anxiously. As rightly contended by the learned Govt.Pleader, since there are only two posts in the category of Commandants in the State, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that his transfer to Thiruvananthapuram and the transfer of the fourth respondent to Ernakulam to his place is uncalled for or arbitrary. Further, the petitioner had been transferred and was posted at Ernakulam from 11.9.2006 onwards. He cannot legitimately contend that he has to be retained at Ernakulam itself. For administrative convenience, certainly WP(C).No.31428/2011-C. 4 the authorities are entitled to move him out. Therefore, Ext.P1 transfer does not suffer from any infirmity. It is well settled that the guidelines are not capable of enforcement under Article 226 of the Constitution. For administrative exigencies, transfers can be effected even in contravention of the guidelines. The petitioner's representation has been considered and has been rejected by Ext.P5. Absolutely no material or evidence is produced to show that the petitioner's transfer is based on any consideration other than administrative convenience and public interest, as contended. 6. For the above reasons, I do not find any grounds to entertain this writ petition or to grant any reliefs as prayed for by the petitioner. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-