IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11399 of 2010(Y) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SHAJI K.JOHN, LASCAR, SOIL CONSERVATION OFFICE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE (SC UNIT), VIKAS BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF SOIL CONSERVATION ARYASALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DISTRICT SOIL CONSERVATION OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SOIL CONSERVATION OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. MANOREMA BAI, PEON, DISTRICT SOIL CONSERVATION OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.ANTONY MUKKATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 11399 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as a Lascar in the Soil Conservation Office. He is aggrieved by Ext.P1 transfer order dated 27.3.2010. As per the said order of transfer, he was transferred and posted to District Soil Conservation Office which is about 35 Kms. away from his present station. The petitioner contends that, in case, it was necessary to transfer someone from the Soil Conservation Office to accommodate the 6th respondent it should have been the senior most person, in the category, working in the office. In short, according to the petitioner, there is clear violation of Ext.P2. 2. Violation of guidelines in Ext.P2 alone cannot be a reason to interfere with the transfer of the petitioner effected as per Ext.P1 to a place which is only about 35 Kms. away from his present office. When confronted with such situation, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to submit a representation raising his grievances against Ext.P1 order before the second respondent. According to the petitioner, since Ext.P1 order WPC.11399 of 2010 : 2 : was issued only on 27.3.2010, he did not get sufficient time to file any representation before the second respondent. Apprehension of immediate implementation of Ext.P1 made him file this writ petition before approaching the authorities. 3. As observed earlier, the norms in Ext.P2 are not enforceable. But at the same time, the petitioner being an employee aggrieved by violation of norms he can certainly approach the competent authority raising his grievances against Ext.P1. The petitioner, therefore, will be at liberty to submit a representation against Ext.P1 before the 2nd respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. In case of receipt of such a representation the 2nd respondent shall consider and pass orders thereon within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such representation. If the 6th respondent is not already relieved pursuant to Ext.P1, the petitioner shall be permitted to continue in the present station till a decision is taken as directed above. The writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A. to Judge