Kerala High Court
Sunil Chandran G vs The Kerala Khadi And Village Industries ... on 11 April, 2024
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA,
1946
WA NO. 531 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.151 OF 2024
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
SUNIL CHANDRAN G , AGED 50 YEARS
DRIVER GRADE-I DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES
OFFICE, KOLLAM RESIDING AT CHANDRABHAVANAM,KUTTIYIL,
KUMBANADU P.O. THIRUVALLA. PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
689547 NEW ADDRESS SUNIL CHANDRAN G., DRIVER GRADE-I
DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE, KOLLAM
NOW AT PAYYANNUR KHADI CENTRE, PAYYANNUR. RESIDING AT
CHANDRABHAVANAM,KUTTIYIL, KUMBANADU P.O. THIRUVALLA. ,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689547
BY ADV R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KHADI BHAVAN,
VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -, PIN - 695035
2 SECRETARY
KERALA KHADI AND VILALGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, KHADI
BHAVAN, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
3 VICE CHAIRMAN
KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, KHADI
BHAVAN, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
WA No. 531 of 2024 2
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI N RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC FOR KERALA KHADI & VILLAGE
INDUSTRIES BOARD
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA No. 531 of 2024 3
JUDGMENT
P.M.Manoj, J.
The unsuccessful writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.151 of 2024 is the appellant before us, aggrieved by the judgment dated 5.3.2024 of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal are as follows:
a) The appellant had approached this Court through the writ petition aforementioned impugning the order of transfer, transferring him from his present position as Driver Grade-I at Pathanamthitta to the same post at Payyannur. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the appellant was originally appointed as Driver Grade -II under the 1st respondent. While he was working at Pathanamthitta, he was transferred to Kollam, by Ext.P1 order dated 22.12.2022, and he joined the said unit. Seeking to confer him with the rank of senior grade driver, he had approached this Court, and the said writ petition is pending consideration. While so, he was abruptly transferred by the impugned order to the Payyanur WA No. 531 of 2024 4 Khadi Centre. The appellant contended that the transfer was not only unwarranted but also instigated by union leaders to harass him. Additionally, he raised personal hardships, citing his wife's incapacitation following three major surgeries and his son's ongoing education in the VIII Standard.
b) The respondents countered these claims by asserting that the transfer was necessitated by administrative needs. They contended that the Payyanur Khadi Centre located in Kannur District is a major hub for the production of Khadi yarn and textiles. The centre requires frequent transportation of materials to and from various production sites, necessitating the use of heavy vehicles. Given the appellant's possession of a heavy vehicle driving licence, his transfer was deemed essential to meet these operational demands.
3. The learned Single Judge took the view that transfer is an incidence of service and the transferred employee cannot dictate his terms regarding a transfer by the employer. It was also held that no mala fides could be attributed to the employer in the facts and circumstances. However, while dismissing the Writ Petition, directions WA No. 531 of 2024 5 were issued to the concerned respondent to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner to transfer him to a nearby District and take appropriate decision.
4. It appears that in terms of the directions issued by this Court, the concerned respondent took up the appeal filed by him and rejected the same by Ext.P7 order.
5. Sri.R.Rajasekharan Pillai, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the respondents ought to have adopted the transfer norms devised by the State, which provides that as far as possible, Class IV and Class III employees shall be accommodated in their parent District or any other nearby place. It is urged that the fact that there was a vacancy in his home District and the petitioner could have been accommodated there was not considered by the respondents.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the petitioner is having a heavy driving licence and the employer required his service at the Payyanur Khadi Centre. It is argued that the learned Single Judge, noting that the transfer was effected to cover administrative exigencies had rightly repelled the challenge. WA No. 531 of 2024 6 Reliance was placed on Gopinathan1 and Sivaramakrishnan2 to bring home his point that the transfer of an employee appointed to a particular cadre of transferable post is an incident of service.
7. We have considered the submissions advanced.
8. It is settled that an order of transfer would not be interfered with lightly in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless the court finds that the order is mala fide or that it is against the service rules or that the authority who issued the order had no competence to pass the order. (See Gujarat Electricity Board and another v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani [(1989) 2 SCC 602], State of U.P. and others v. Ashok Kumar Saxena and another [(1998) 3 SCC 303], State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal and others [(2001) 5 SCC 508] and Venkitaramanan Potti v. Travancore Devaswom Board [1993 (2) KLT 374]).
9. In the case on hand, the learned Single Judge has evaluated the entire aspects and the law on the point and has refused to interfere with the order. Having considered the contentions raised 1 Gopinathan v. State of Kerala (2014 (4) KLT 285) 2 Sivaramakrishnan v. State of Kerala (2008 (3) KLT Suppl.54 ) WA No. 531 of 2024 7 before us, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly refused to interfere. Even in Ext. P7 order passed in terms of the directions issued by this Court, the respondent has stated that the service of the petitioner was required at the Payyanur Khadi Center. The contentions raised before us to interfere with the transfer do not appeal to us as the appellant has no case that the transfer order is issued with mala fide intent or that the same is against the Rules of the Khadi Board or that the order of transfer has been passed by an authority who is not competent.
In that view of the matter, we find no reason to entertain this appeal. This appeal is dismissed.
sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE sd/-
P.M.MANOJ JUDGE das