IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2840 of 2008(S) ------------------------------------- O.A. NO. 604/2006 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- S.VISWANATHAN, S/O.LATE SANKARAN MADHAVAN, SENIOR MANAGER, MALL MOTOR SERVICE (DEPARTMENT OF POST), ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 016, RESIDING AT `SUHRUDAM', V.S.N.ROAD, PALLURUTHY, COCHIN-682 005. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN, ADV. SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS, DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI. 3. S.S.KUSHWAHA, MANAGER J.T.S., MALL MOTOR SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI. BY SRI. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. S.G. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.2840 OF 2008-S -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J: The petitioner was the applicant in O.A.No. 604/2006 before the C.A.T Ernakulam Bench. The respondents herein were the respondents in that O.A. The petitioner challenged Annexure A6 order dated 4.4.2006 transferring him from Cochin to Gauhati in the said O.A, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P1. He also challenged redeployment of the post of Senior Manager MMS from Cochin to Gauhati as per Annexure A8 dated 28.4.2006. According to him, the transfer is illegal as he who is a senior Manager is posted to a place where there is no post of Senior Manager. 2. The respondents in the said O.A pointed out that there was no post of Senior Manager in Cochin to accommodate the petitioner. Since he wanted a posting near to his native place, he was transferred to Cochin by shifting his post. Now he was transferred to Gauhati in exigencies of service as there was no post of Senior Manger there, his post was also shifted to Gauhati. The WPC.NO.2840/2008 . 2 petitioner, who is a beneficiary of shifting of the post to Cochin, cannot contend that the shifting of the post to Gauhati is in violation of the Rules. So, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the O.A. 3. Tribunal accepting the above contention of the respondents, dismissed the O.A . Hence, this writ petition. 4. This Court can interfere with the order of transfer, if it is vitiated by malafides or is illegal. The petitioner does not have a whisper anywhere in his pleadings that the transfer is vitiated by malafides. We agree with the finding of the C.A.T that the petitioner, who is the beneficiary of shifting of the post to Cochin, cannot demur when the same post is shifted to Gauhati due to exigencies of service. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 3rd respondent, who has been posted to Cochin, has not taken charge and therefore another officer has been put in charge of the post. The learned counsel also submitted that petitioner is the senior most in the cadre of Senior Manager and therefore, he is entitled to be transferred to Kolkotha or Mumbai for which he has already filed a WPC.NO.2840/2008 . 3 representation, copy of which is produced as Ext.P14. According to the petitioner, there is one vacancy each at Kolkatha and Mumbai. But, we notice that this a fresh cause of action. The petitioner can pursue his claim raised in Ext.P14. We cannot adjudicate on it in the present writ petition. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue Ext.P14 representation. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR , JUDGE P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl WPC.NO.2840/2008 . 4