IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 23088 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GNANADAS.C., AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.LATE CHRISTHUDAS, SUB ENGINEER, 66 KV SUB STATION SECTION, K.S.E.B., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT CHENCHERI HOUSE, VANDANNOOR, PERUMPAZHUTHOOR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-26. BY ADV. SRI.K.SABU RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. CHIEF ENGINEER, HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, K.S.E.B., PATTOM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, K.S.E.B., PATTOM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION SUB DIVISION, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, 110 KV SUB STATION, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. STATION ENGINEER, 66 KV SUB STATION, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV.K.S. ANIL, S.C., KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: app/- P.N. RAVINDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.23088 of 2009. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.K.Sabu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.S.Anil, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board. 2. The petitioner entered service in the Kerala State Electricity Board on 24.6.1995. Initially he was posted in Kasaragod district. While he was working as Sub Engineer in the Electrical Section at Edoor, he was transferred to Transmission Circle, Thiruvananthapuram by Ext.P1 order dated 1.5.2008 issued by the Chief Engineer. When Ext.P1 order was not implemented, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.19164 of 2008 in this Court. By Ext.P2 judgment delivered on 25.6.2008 this Court directed the Chief Engineer to relieve the petitioner from Electrical Section, Edoor within one month from the date of the judgment. The petitioner was accordingly relieved from Electrical Section, Edoor and he joined duty in the 66 KV Sub Station W.P.(C) No.23088 of 2009. 2 at Neyyatinkara under Transmission Circle, Thiruvananthapuram on 6.7.2008. Later, by Ext.P3 order dated 6.8.2009, petitioner was transferred and posted as Sub Engineer in the 110 KV Sub Station at Thirumala. The petitioner challenges his transfer from 66 KV Sub Station, Neyyattinkara to 110 KV Sub Station, Thirumala. He contends that as he has served for only one year at 66 KV Sub Station, Neyyatinkara he is not due for transfer. He also submits that after the Sub Engineers at Neyyatinkara were transferred out, two Sub Engineers have been appointed on contract basis at Neyyatinkara. He also submits that as he has to look after his aged mother and grand mother and his only child who is seven years old, the transfer from Neyyattinkara to Thirumala wll cause serious prejudice to him. 3. Sri.K.S.Anil, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board submits on instructions that a vacancy of Sub Engineer in the 110 KV Sub Station at Thirumala which supplies power to State W.P.(C) No.23088 of 2009. 3 capital arose on 5.8.2009 when the incumbent was transferred out. He submits that the petitioner was therefore transferred and posted in the said vacancy. He also submits that the 66 KV Sub Station at Neyyattinkara and the 110 KV Sub Station at Thirumala are both within the Transmission Circle, Thiruvananthapuram and that the petitioner who is posted in his home district cannot legitimately complain about his transfer. He also submits that the distance between Thirumala and Neyyattinkara is hardly 15 kms and the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved by reason of his transfer to Thirumala. 4. As an employee of the Board, the petitioner is bound to serve wherever he is posted. Initially on transfer to Transmission Circle, Thiruvananthapuram he was posted in the 66 KV Sub Station at Neyyattinkara. Later, he was transferred to the 110 KV Sub Station at Thirumala when a vacancy arose there on 5.8.2009. It cannot therefore be said that the petitioner's transfer was not in the exigencies of service. Further the petitioner has not been transferred W.P.(C) No.23088 of 2009. 4 to a station far away from his place of residence. He is retained in his home district itself. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents have acted arbitrary or illegally in transferring the petitioner from Neyyattinkara to Thirumala. Further the petitioner has not been able to establish that the order of transfer is one passed by an incompetent authority or in violation of any statutory rule. He has also established by any cogent material that the order of transfer is malafide. I am therefore of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the challenge to Ext.P3. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. app/-