Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The petitioner, an Assistant manager in the service of the Kerala State Co-operative Federation for Fisheries Development Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as `the Matsyafed' for short) has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 order dated 4.11.2011 issued by the Managing Director of the Matsyafed whereby he was transferred from Matsyafed District Office, Alappuzha to Matsyafed District Office, Thrissur.

2. The petitioner challenges the order of transfer on various grounds. The first contention raised is that he has been transferred for the reason that he is a member of the Matsyafed Employees Federation which owes allegiance to the Left Democratic Front. The second contention raised is that the petitioner's wife is working as Revenue Inspector in the Revenue Department at Alappuzha and therefore he is entitled to be reained at Alappuzha. The third contention is that his minor son Abhijit Kumar is a VII standard student of St.Alocious Secondary School, Punnapra and in such circumstances if in the midst of the concurrent academic year he is transferred out, it would affect the studies of his child. The petitioner  has yet another contention that five Panchayats in Alappuzha district are placed under his control, that under the Peoples Planning Programme he has to disburse large amounts to the beneficiaries in the said five panchayats and therefore if he is transferred out before the end of the financial year, it would cause serious prejudice to them.

3. Respondents 2 to 4 have filed a counter affidavit. In paragraph 3 thereof it is stated that the petitioner has been in service for the past 23 years, that out of the past 23 years he has been working in Alappuzha for about 20 years and that for the last six years he has been uninterruptedly working in Alappuzha district. In paragraph 4, respondents 2 to 4 have denied the allegation that the petitioner was transferred out for the reason that he is member of the Matsyafed Employees Federation which owes allegiance to the Left Democratic Front. In paragraph 6 it is stated that besides the petitioner, there are nine other Assistant Managers who are working in the District Office at Alappuzha, that there are only six clusters, that the affairs of the six clusters can be managed by them, that besides the petitioner yet another Manager was transferred out from Alappuzha to Ernakulam and that it was taking into account the poor performance of the District Office at Matsyafed in Alappuzha district when compared to other districts that a decision was taken to transfer out two of the Assistant Managers with a view to improve the  functioning of the District Office at Alappuzha. It is stated that the transfer was ordered as a part of the exercise undertaken by the Administration to improve the working of the District Office of the Matsyafed at Alappuzha. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit reiterating the contentions raised in the writ petition and contending that he is a field officer and generally field officers are not transferred out of their home district and are retained in their home district even on being promoted.

4. I heard Sri.Elvin Peter P.J., learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Anitha Ravindran, learned Government Pleader appearing for the State of Kerala and Sri.George Poonthottam learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. The petitioner challenges the order of transfer mainly on three grounds. The first contention is that he is transferred out for the reason that he is a member of the Matsyafed Employees Federation which owes allegiance to the Left Democratic Front. Apart from such a vague statement, the petitioner has not produced any cogent material to substantiate his contention. Ext.P1 order of transfer discloses that six employees were transferred. The petitioner has no case that all the six employees' who were transferred are members of the same federation or any other trade union or service organisation, which owes allegiance to the Left Democratic  Front. As stated earlier, apart from vaguely stating that his transfer is due to political considerations, the petitioner has not produced any material in support of the said contention. I therefore find no reason to interfere with Ext.P1 order on that score.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Director of School Education, Madras v. O.Karuppa Thevan and Another (1994 Supp (2) SCC 666) that transfers should not be effected during the middle of an academic year. In the said decision, the Apex Court held that although there is no such rule, while effecting transfers, the fact that children of the employee are studying should be given due weight if the exigencies of the service are not urgent. Respondents 2 to 4 have stated that Ext.P1 order of transfer transferring out two Assistant Managers including the petitioner from the District Office of the Matsyafed at Alappuzha was issued with a view to improve the performance of the Alappuzha District Office. It is also stated that as against six Assistant Managers who are required to run the District Office, there are eight Assistant Managers, two Project Officers/Trainees and other supporting staff, even after the transfer of the petitioner and yet another Assistant Manager. It is also stated with reference to facts and figures that the performance of Alappuzha District Office has been the poorest among the 9 marine district offices in the State of Kerala and in such circumstance in order to improve the performance, the transfer was effected. The petitioner has not been  able to show that the said statement made in the counter affidavit is factually incorrect. Though the petitioner has attempted to justify the level of performance achieved in the Alappuzha District Office, in paragraph 9 of the reply affidavit, the petitioner has virtually conceded the fact that the performance of Alappuzha District Office when compared to other district offices is poor. He has also chosen to give various reasons for the poor performance. In such circumstances as the petitioner has virtually admitted the fact that performance of the Matsyafed District Office at Alappuzha is poor, it cannot be said that the exigencies of service must yield to the personal preference of the petitioner or that the transfer should be kept in abeyance until such time as the academic year comes to an end.