IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2010 / 28TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20183 of 2010(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- N.A.SANTHOSH KUMAR, HEAD CLERK, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER'S (AGRL.) OFFICE VELLAYANI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS.SRI.S.SUJIN, SMT.NITA.N.S. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(AGRL), VELLAYANI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. P.RAMACHANDRAN, HEAD CLERK, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(AGRL), THRISSUR. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKATH, R4 BY ADVS. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, SMT.P.V.PARVATHI, SMT.REENA THOMAS, SRI.L.RAM MOHAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 20183 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner and the fourth respondent were working as UDC in the Agriculture Department. 2. By Ext.P1 order, they were promoted to the post of Head Clerk. Thereupon the petitioner was posted to Principal Agricultural Office, Kannur and the fourth respondent to Thrissur. 3. From Ext.P5 order, it would appear that in pursuance to Ext.P1 order, petitioner joined duty at Agricultural Office, Kannur on 10.5.2010 and entered on casual leave from 11.5.2010. On account of this, due to administrative exigencies, the Principal Agricultural Officer, Kannur transferred the petitioner to Chalode and a person working at Chalode was transferred and posted in his place. 4. In the meanwhile the petitioner and the fourth respondent represented against the order transferring and posting them. Ext.R4(b) is the representation filed by the fourth respondent. The complaint of the fourth respondent was that while he was transferred, his juniors were retained at Thiruvananthapuram. He also stated that two vacancies of UDCs and Head Clerks are to arise soon and therefore his claim for posting at Thiruvananthapuram should be considered against one of those vacancies. 5. While the fourth respondent's claim was thus engaging the WPC No.20183/2010 2 attention of the respondents, Ext.P2 order dated 23.6.2010 was issued transferring the petitioner to Thiruvananthapuram and according to the petitioner, he joined duty on 25.6.2010. It is stated that thereupon the fourth respondent complained that his claim for posting to Thiruvananthapuram was over looked and that the petitioner who is junior to him was posted. Apparently, in order to remedy the situation, Ext.P3 order dated 25.6.2010 was issued transferring and posting the third respondent to Thiruvananthapuram and the petitioner was transferred to Thrissur. It was thereupon the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P3 order transferring him to Thrissur. 6. The contention raised by the petitioner is that Ext.P3 order transferring him and the fourth respondent would appear to be a mutual transfer and that he did not consent to any such mutual transfer. It is also stated that in pursuance to Ext.P2, he joined duty at Thiruvananthapuram on 25.6.2010 and therefore there was no justification in transferring him immediately thereafter. 7. From the facts as pleaded by the fourth respondent, it is obvious that when he was posted to Thrissur, he filed a complaint to the effect that his juniors have been retained at Thiruvananthapuram itself and that he has been posted at Thrissur, ignoring his seniority. Admittedly, the fourth respondent is senior to the petitioner also. Pleadings would show that it was over looking the representation filed by the fourth respondent WPC No.20183/2010 3 that Ext.P2 order issued on 23.6.2010 transferring and posting the petitioner from Chalode to Thiruvananthapuram. When that mistake was pointed out, Ext.P3 order was issued on 25.3.2006 correcting the mistake and posting the fourth respondent to Thiruvananthapuram and accommodating the petitioner at Thrissur in the post vacated by the fourth respondent. An administration order, issued in such circumstances, cannot be said to be an arbitrary exercise of power nor cannot be said to be vitiated by any mala fides. Therefore, I am not persuaded to interfere with Ext.P3 order. 8. Be that as it may, the petitioner contends that since his juniors are retained at Thiruvananthapuram, there is no justification in posting him at Thrissur. If he has such a contention, it is up to the petitioner to take up the matter before the first respondent in which event it is directed that the first respondent should consider the same and pass appropriate orders. The writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC (JUDGE) vps WPC No.20183/2010 4 WPC No.20183/2010 5