Kerala High Court
S. Rajeev vs The Travancore Devaswom Board on 13 June, 2023
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 18409 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
S. RAJEEV
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O.SIVARAMAPILLAI,
'RAJEEVAM', JANARDHANAPURAM
KILITHATTUMUKKU,VARKALA P.O
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695141.
BY ADVS.
JELSON J.EDAMPADAM
K.G.RAJEESH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695003.
2 THE DEVASWOM BOARD COMMISSIONER
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695003.
3 THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
VARKALA, VARKALA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695141.
BY ADV.G.BIJU- S.C
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.18409 of 2023
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of June, 2023 The petitioner, who is working as Watcher under the Varkala Group, is aggrieved by Ext.P3 impugned order, whereby the petitioner stands transferred to Sharkara Devaswom.
2. The petitioner states that he was working as Watcher in Varkala Group. During the general transfers, the petitioner submitted options, preferring Varkala as the first choice and Minor Kulathoopuzha as the second choice. In the general transfers, the petitioner was posted at Minor Kulathoopuzha.
3. The petitioner states that there was a vacancy of Watcher in Varkala Devaswom and therefore the petitioner submitted an appeal insisting for posting in the first choice station. To the surprise and predicament of the petitioner, the petitioner's appeal has been disposed of posting the petitioner at Sharkara Devaswom. Sharkara Devaswom is a faraway place and it would W.P.(C) No.18409 of 2023 3 cause undue hardship to the petitioner if he is posted there.
4. Standing Counsel entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, all the statements made by the petitioner in the writ petition were denied. It is submitted that the petitioner was posted at his choice station at Minor Kulathoopuzha. The petitioner was not satisfied with his posting at Minor Kulathoopuzha and filed an appeal. In such circumstances, the petitioner was posted at an alternative place at Sharkara.
5. On behalf of the respondents, it is further submitted that transfer is a condition of service and the same cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless there is violation of any statutory rules or patent malafide in the matter. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents. W.P.(C) No.18409 of 2023 4
7. The petitioner, during the general transfers, had opted for Varkala and Minor Kulathoopuzha as first and second choices, respectively. The petitioner was posted at Minor Kulathoopuzha. Even at that time, a vacancy of Watcher existed in Varkala and therefore the petitioner submitted an appeal for posting at Varkala. To the surprise of the petitioner, the appeal has been disposed of rejecting the request of the petitioner, at the same time, transferring the petitioner to yet another place, namely, Sharkara. The petitioner would submit that the appellate order is stigmatic and the petitioner will be put to undue hardship if he is posted at Sharkara.
7. I find that originally the petitioner was posted at Minor Kulathoopuzha. When an appeal was filed by the petitioner for posting at a nearer place, namely, Varkala, the petitioner has been transferred to Sharkara. In an appeal filed by the petitioner, whether such a punitive measure can be taken is a matter of W.P.(C) No.18409 of 2023 5 concern. However, this Court is of the opinion that taking into consideration the afore facts, the 2nd respondent shall reconsider the appellate order.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of setting aside Ext.P3 appellate order to the extent it applies to the petitioner and directing the 2nd respondent to take a decision afresh, within a period of four weeks. Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board submits that if the petitioner is willing to join Minor Kulathoopuzha Devaswom, in the meanwhile, the petitioner can join there, subject to orders to be passed. This statement is recorded.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH JUDGE ams W.P.(C) No.18409 of 2023 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18409/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF TEH PROCEEDINGS DATED 17.04.2023 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT, TRANSFERRING THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 20.04.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
R.O.C.13/23/MIS. A DATED 19.05.2023, OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.11.2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.22030 OF 2020, OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 01.06.2023 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT