IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 19981 of 2011(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- PONNU, S/O.CHATHU,AGED 51 YEARS, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, O/O.THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DIARY DEVELOPMENT, KALPETTA, WAYANAD BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF DIARY DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.PIN-695 001 2. THE DIRECTOR OF DIARY DEVELOPMENT, TRIVANDRUM.PIN-695 001 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DIARY DEVELOPMENT, WAYANAD.PIN-673 121 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DIARY DEVELOPMENT, PALAKKAD.PIN-678 001 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DIARY DEVELOPMENT, MALAPPURAM,PIN-676 505 6. C.HAMSA, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, O/O.DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DIARY DEVELOPMENT, PALAKKAD.PIN-678 001 7. HAMSA PALLIKUNNAN, JUNION SUPERINTENDENT, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DIARY DEVELOPMENT, MALAPPURAM.676 505 R1 TO R5 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.L.G.SURESH BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.19981/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR GENERAL TRANSFER DATED 20/01/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P2 COPY OF THE GRADATION LIST DATED 01/01/2011 OF THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENTS IN THE DIARY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/07/2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 19981 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is presently working as a Senior Superintendent in the office of the Deputy Director of Diary Development, Kalpatta in Wayanad District. He belongs to a Scheduled Caste. He had almost completed 5 years' stay at the said station. On earlier occasions his applications for transfer to Palakkad was not considered favourably as senior applicants were available. The petitioner had submitted an application for transfer to Palakkad in the current year, as well. Subsequently, as per Ext.P3 transfer and posting of senior Superintendents in the department was effected by the 2nd respondent along with postings on promotion. The grievance of the petitioner is that contrary to the consistent stand taken by the 2nd respondent to deny transfer to the petitioner the rule of seniority was overlooked this time without any justification and respondents 6 and 7 who are juniors to him in the category of Senior Superintendent have been granted transfer to Palakkad. To substantiate the contention that he is senior the petitioner is relying on Ext.P2 WPC.No.19981/2011 : 2 : seniority list of Senior Superintendent in the department as on 1.1.2011. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P3 and seeking for consequential directions to the second respondent to post the petitioner in a vacancy of Senior Superintendent in the office of the 4th respondent. 2. Essentially, the grievance of the petitioner is against Ext.P3 order of transfer whereby ignoring his seniority respondents 6 and 7 were given transfer and posting to Palakkad. The contention of the petitioner is that his requests for transfer to Palakkad was not acceded hitherto on the ground that he is not senior enough among the applicants, to get such a transfer and posting. As already noticed hereinbefore, the grievance of the petitioner is that as per Ext.P3 persons who are juniors viz., respondents 6 and 7 were granted transfer ignoring his seniority. Prima facie, Ext.P2 reveals his seniority over them. A perusal of Ext.P3 would not suggest that it is a general transfer. However, it will be open to the petitioner to raise his grievance against Ext.P3 to the extent it orders transfer and posting to the respondents 6 and 7 overlooking his seniority to Palakkad, before the first WPC.No.19981/2011 : 3 : respondent. I am of the considered view that it requires a serious consideration. In case, the petitioner prefers such a representation/appeal against Ext.P3 before the first respondent within 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment the first respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner and also the respondents 6 and 7. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of representation/appeal from the petitioner. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge