IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 2787 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.33661/2009 Dated 30/11/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------- VEDAVYASAN V.B., VALIYAVEEDU, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, NOW WORKING AS PASHUPALAKAN AT KAVEEDU GOKULAM, KAVEEDU, GURUVAYUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF DEVASWOM, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE, GURUVAYUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. THE ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM BOARD, GURUVAYUR. 4. THE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR (ADMINISTRATION GURUVAYUR DEWASWOM BOARD, GURUVAYUR. 5. K.V.PRAKASAN, PASHUPALAKAN, KAVEEDU GOKULAM, KAVEEDU, THAMARAYUR P.O., VIA KOTTAPPADY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 6. T.K.SURESH, PASHUPALAKAN, KAVEEDU GOKULAM, KAVEEDU, THAMARAYUR P.O., VIA KOTTAPPADY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 7. ASOKAN, PASHUPALAKAN, KAVEEDU GOKULAM, KAVEEDU, THAMARAYUR P.O., VIA KOTTAPPADY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 8. UNNI NARAYANAN, PASHUPALAKAN, KAVEEDU GOKULAM, KAVEEDU, THAMARAYUR P.O., VIA KOTTAPPADY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON FOR R2,3 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.2787 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 6th January, 2010. J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is a Pashupalakan working under the Guruvayur Devaswom. The grievance raised by him in the writ petition was against Ext.P8 order. The said order was passed rejecting Ext.P7 representation filed by the appellant based on the direction of this court in Ext.P6 judgment. 2. The grievance raised in Ext.P7 was regarding his transfer to Vengad Gokulam from Kaveed Gokulam. According to the appellant, his physical condition is not that good to work in Vengad Gokulam, where the area is large and the number of cows are larger, when compared to Kaveed Gokulam. By Ext.P8, the Administrator of the Devaswom communicated the decision of the Devaswom Board to the appellant, rejecting his representation. So, the writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P8. 3. The learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the impugned order. This court can interfere with a transfer order only on limited grounds. If the transfer is illegal or vitiated by malafides, this court may interfere with the same. We find that WA NO.2787/2009 2 no such ground has been made in the writ petition. If the physical condition of the appellant is such that he cannot work, he may go on leave and undergo treatment to improve his physical condition, and then join duty. If he is physically fit to join duty, he should work, where the services of the appellant are required by his employer. The appellant cannot be heard to say that he is medically fit to work at Kaveed and not fit to work at Vengad. In the matter of deployment of Pashupalakan, this court cannot interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. tgs K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.2787 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 6th January, 2010.