IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2009 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 36200 of 2008(H) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P.VIJAYA PRAKASAN, REVENUE OFFICER, PH DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THRISSUR-20. BY ADV. MR.A.JAYASANKAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. 2. K.KRISHNA DAS, REVENUE OFFICER, PH DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. BY ADVV. MR.C.UNNIKRISHNAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.36200/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER DT. 13.11.07. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER SANCTIONING MEDICAL LEAVE TO THE PETITIONR DT. 13.11.08. P3:- COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DT. 12.11.08 ISSUED BY THE PAALANA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, PALAKKAD. P4:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 14.6.95(GUIDELINES FOR TRANSFER). P5:- COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER DT. 4.12.08 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE TSS T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 36200 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the order of transfer Ext.P5 by which he stands transferred from Thrissur to Malappuram District. While admitting the writ petition, this Court passed an interim order that if the petitioner has not been relieved pursuant to Ext.P5 order of transfer, he shall not be relieved till further orders. By order dated 11.12.2008, the order Ext.P5 was stayed. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the Water Authority. The petitioner is a native of Palakkad district. While working as Divisional Accountant at PH Division, Malappuram, he submitted a request for a transfer to Thrissur which was granted by Ext.P1 order dated 13.11.2007. The petitioner joined there on 16.11.2007. 3. Thereafter, he had availed medical leave for 20 days from 10.11.08 to 29.11.2008 and underwent surgery for Lap TEP Hernia on 10.11.08. Consequently, he rejoined duty on 1.12.08. wpc: 36200 of 2008 2 4. The order of transfer is challenged on various grounds. It is submitted that he has not completed 3years tenure in the said station. Further he was posted Thrissur on his request. The second respondent is his junior. He was promoted along with the petitioner and was posted in Pathanamthitta. He was later transferred to Malappuram, only six months back. 5. The petitioner is due to retire on 31.3.2011 and the 2nd respondent is due to retire on 31.3.2012. In spite of service of notice in the writ petition the 2nd respondent has not chosen to enter appearance, and thus has not opposed the prayers sought for by the petitioners. 6. The learned standing counsel for the Water Authority has filed a statement in support of the order of transfer. It is pointed out that the 2nd respondent assumed charge on the FN of 09.12.08 in the absence of the petitioner. While considering the challenge against Ext.P5 it has to be noticed that the same is in violation of clause 2 of Ext.P4 guidelines. Clause 2 of Ext.P4 guidelines provides that “in the normal case employee will not be retained in the same office for more than 3 years and there will be a change of office every 3 years.” Herein the petitioner wpc: 36200 of 2008 3 has only completed 11 months. The transfer to Thrissur was on his request also. Therefore, he was not due for transfer at all. Apart from the same the second respondent was also not due for transfer. It is well settled that the power to transfer an employee cannot be allowed and the action cannot be arbitrary. 7. Ext.P5 shows that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are mutually transferred. Even going by the statement there is no averment to the effect that the second respondent had requested for a transfer to Thrissur and no other administrative exigency is also pointed out. In that view of the matter, Ext.P5 is quashed. Since no administrative exigency has been established in support of Ext.P5 the petitioner will be retained in Thrissur. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE bps