AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner aggrieved by Exhibits P4 and P7 orders concerning non-
consideration of his grievances against the transfer.
The Petitioner is working as Inspector of Police (Telecommunication) and he was promoted as such by order dated 21.5.2009 and was posted
in the Kozhikode City on 21.5.2009. The Petitioner was transferred to Thiruvananthapuram as per Exhibit P1 order. This order was kept in
abeyance by Exhibit P2 order and later a composite order for promotion and transfer was issued as per Exhibit P3, whereby the Petitioner was
transferred to Thiruvananthapuram Rural instead of Thiruvananthapuram City and he joined therein on 26.4.2010. The Petitioner was later on
transferred by Exhibit P4 order to Alappuzha to accommodate one Shri B. Mohanakumaran Nair, who was transferred to Thiruvananthapuram.
He was relieved from duties on 6.5.2010. Alleging various violations of the norms of transfer, the Petitioner filed Exhibit P5 representation and this
Court by Exhibit P6 judgment directed the competent authority to consider the representation and Exhibit P7 is the order rejecting the
representation.
What is mentioned in Exhibit P7 is that seniority is not the sole criteria for transfer and his request for transfer to Thiruvananthapuram District is
not considered now.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that it is only to retain the 4th Respondent in Thiruvananthapuram-who is junior to him- the
Petitioner was transferred to Alappuzha. It is further pointed out that the 4th Respondent is the office bearer of an Association and that alone
favoured him for getting a posting in Thiruvananthapuram in preference to the Petitioner.
The learned Counsel for the 4th Respondent submitted that the 4th Respondent was promoted as per Exhibit P3 order and was retained in
Thiruvananthapuram. The 4th Respondent is also having more outside service and the Petitioner has been working in Thiruvananthapuram for a
number of years, and had gone out only at the time of promotion in 2009.
The counter affidavit filed by Respondents 1 to 3 shows that Shri B. Mohanakumaran Nair submitted a request before the Police Establishment
Board for a transfer to Thiruvananthapuram on retirement concession. He is due to retire from service on 31.3.2012 and the Police Establishment
Board in the meeting held on 26.4.2010 examined his request and considered his request on retirement concession. Accordingly, he was
transferred to Thiruvananthapuram Rural and the Petitioner to Alappuzha. The allegation raised by the Petitioner that it was only to favour the 4th
Respondent that he was transferred is denied also.
Evidently,therefore, the Petitioner''s transfer is due to the concession given to Shri B. Mohanakumaran Nair which is evident from Exhibit P4
order also. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the 4th Respondent, the Petitioner has no challenge in Exhibit P3 order whereby the
4th Respondent was promoted and posted in Thiruvananthapuram. Further, it is seen from the counter affidavit filed by Respondents 1 to 3 that the
Petitioner was working in Thiruvananthapuram District for a period of 20 years and more. He was transferred to Kozhikode after promotion in the
year 2009.
Even though the learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contended that the transfer of the Petitioner is due to extraneous and malafide
reasons, I am not satisfied that the contentions are correct. Evidently, it is only to accommodate Shri B. Mohanakumaran Nair, the Petitioner has
been shifted by Exhibit P4 order. Admittedly, the said Officer is his senior also, and he is retiring within two years.
In that view of the matter, there is no illegality or irregularity in Exhibit P4. Therefore the Writ Petition is dismissed. But this will not stand in the
way of the authorities considering the request of the Petitioner for accommodating him in Thiruvananthapuram District in any other vacancy arising
in future.