AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The challenge is against Exhibit P3 order whereby the 3rd respondent is transferred and posted as Assistant Drugs Controller in Ernakulam in an existing vacancy.
The petitioner has been included in the select list published as per Exhibit P1 for promotion to the post of Assistant Drugs Controller. Exhibit P1 is dated 31.3.2009. One Shri M.D. Gopalan, Assistant Drugs Controller, Ernakulam, retired from service on 31.3.2009 and a consequent vacancy arose at Ernakulam. It is the case of the petitioner that on coming to know of the vacancy, he filed a representation as per Exhibit P2. But, ignoring the petitioner''s claim, the 3rd respondent has been transferred to fill up the vacancy at Ernakulam.
The petitioner also alleges, in the Writ Petition, that the 3rd respondent has some interest in the family business at Ernakulam and he had been working in Ernakulam for a number of years and his transfer was ordered ignoring the fact that some enquiries were going on against him for his alleged involvement in the family business.
Heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri N. Nandakumara Menon, appearing for the petitioner, the learned Senior Counsel Shri O.V. Radhakrishnan appearing for the 3rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader.
The third respondent in the counter affidavit, has denied the allegations raised against him. It is further pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the 3rd respondent that as on the date on which the order of transfer was issued, the 3rd respondent was already working in the promoted post. But, so far as the petitioner is concerned, he was only awaiting promotion and therefore, he cannot lay any claim for the vacancy which arose at Ernakulam on 31.3.2009. The 3rd respondent duly submitted a representation anticipating the retirement vacancy and therefore it is contended that the petitioner who was awaiting promotion had to move to the station wherein a vacancy may occur as he cannot have a claim for any particular vacancy. It is further contended that inclusion in the select list will not confer any indefeasible right unless and until Government acts upon it and promotes a person.
The petitioner has already moved the Government as per Exhibit P4 representation. It is pointed out in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent that the representation has been received on 18.5.2009 and the petitioner immediately approached this Court by filing this Writ Petition.
Even though arguments have been raised with regard to the alleged interest of the 3rd respondent in the family business - which is stoutly opposed by the 3rd respondent - I am not going into the merits of the said allegation. Evidently, the order of transfer is dated 14.5.2009 and the order has been implemented also. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner will arise only during the next general transfer.
In that view of the matter, there will be a direction to the Government to consider Exhibit P4 representation with notice to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and appropriate decision will be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.