IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 25594 of 2008(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P.K. SANTHAMMA, ATTENDANT, VETERINARY DISPENSARY, EZHUPUNNA. BY ADV. MR.R.PADMAKUMAR MR.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DIRECTORATE OF ANIMALY HUSBANDRY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY OFFICER, DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. DR.M.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, PRODUCTION MANAGER CENTRAL HATCHERY, CHENGANNUR. 4. HARIHARAN PILLAI, SENIOR ACCOUNTANT , CENTRAL HATCHERY, CHENGANNUR. 5. P.K.RAJAN, ATTENDANT, CENTRAL HATCHERY, CHENGANNUR. R1 & R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.NANDAKUMAR R3 & R4 BY ADV. MR.TITUS MANI, MR.S.SURAJ (PALATHANATHU). THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 25594/2008-V APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 30/05/2008 FILED BY PEITIONER BEFORE THE TALUK LEGAL SERVICE COMMITTEE. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/06/2008. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED 23/06/2008. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COURIER RCEIPT DATED 25/06/2008. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27/06/2008 IN W.P.(C). NO. 19527/2008. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/07/2008 BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19/02/2009 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE FORWARDING NOTE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE REPORT FROM THE ANTI-HARSSMENT CELL. EXT.R2(b): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE OFFICE STAFF. EXT.R2(c): COPY OF THE STATEMENT MADE BY SRI.JAYESH. EXT.R2(d): COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR GOVT. QUARTERS SUBMITTED BY L.REMADEVI. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rs/ P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.25594 of 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated 3rd June, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.R.T.Pradeep, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.P.Nandakumar, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.Titus Mani, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4. In the nature of the order that I propose to pass, it is not necessary to await service of notice on the fifth respondent. 2. The petitioner who was working as an Attendant in the Central Hatchery at Chengannur has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2 order transferring her from Chengannur to Veterinary Dispensary, Ezhupunna and Ext.P7 order passed by the District Animal Husbandry Officer upholding Ext.P2. The fifth respondent is the substitute appointed in the petitioner's place at Chengannur. According to the petitioner, the third respondent, her superior officer had sexually harassed her and thereupon she filed a complaint before the Taluk Legal Services Authority, Chengannur. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was to wreak vengeance on the petitioner that she was transferred from Chengannur. WP(C).No.25594/2008 2 3. Ext.P2 order of transfer was passed on 19.6.2008. The order of transfer has taken effect. The committee constituted to enquire into the complaint filed by the petitioner has after enquiry submitted Ext.R2(a) report holding that the complaint of sexual harassment raised by the petitioner against respondents 3 and 4 is false. Nearly one year has passed after the transfer order has taken effect. Ext.P7 discloses that the petitioner has transferred out in order to ensure discipline in the office where she was working. A learned single Judge of this Court has in Ramachandran Nair v. Director of Training and another (ILR 1992(3) Ker. 149) held that transfer intended to ensure efficiency in administration and maintenance of discipline cannot be interfered with. In the instant case, the pleadings disclose that the petitioner was transferred out from Chengannur to maintain discipline in the office where she was working. Her transfer from Cherngannur cannot therefore be said to be arbitrary or illegal. On the facts disclosed from the pleadings, it cannot be stated that the petitioner's transfer from Chengannur is in any way vitiated. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, as nearly one year has passed after the petitioner was transferred out of Chengannur, the first respondent shall consider whether the petitioner can be given a suitable posting at WP(C).No.25594/2008 3 a place other than Chengannur. In order to enable the first respondent to act as directed above, the petitioner shall file an appropriate representation before him within two weeks from today and the said officer shall within another two weeks thereafter consider whether having regard to the medical condition of the petitioner's husband, she can be given a posting in a station other than Chengannur. In order to enable the petitioner to move the first respondent and await his orders, I direct that till 30.6.2009 the petitioner shall not be evicted from the quarters at Chengannur where she is presently residing. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS