Kerala High Court
Rajmohan M.B vs The Director on 22 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 12018 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
RAJMOHAN M.B.
AGED 48 YEARS
ELECTRICIAN, ENGINEERING WING, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, MEDICAL
COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011, RESIDING AT ELAVUNGAL
BHAVANI NILAYAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695011.
BY ADVS.
LAKSHMI RAMADAS
APARNA RAJAN
SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DIRECTOR,
REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011.
2 REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ATHUL SHAJI, SC
ATHUL SHAJI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.07.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 12018 OF 2021
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is working as an Electrician in the
services of the Regional Cancer Centre (RCC),
Thiruvananthapuram, impugns Ext.P4 order issued by its Director
transferring him to the "Early Cancer Detection Centre" (ECDC),
Palakkad.
2. The petitioner specifically asserts that this transfer has
been ordered by the Director of the RCC as a vindictive measure
since he had earlier approached this Court, through W.P.
(C)No.3114/2021, seeking that he be promoted as an Electrical
Supervisor, in which an interim order has been issued by this
Court, namely, Ext.P3.
3. The petitioner alleges that it is to thwart his claim for
being appointed as an Electrical Supervisor that Ext.P4 order had
been issued transferring him to ECDC, Palakkad, where there is no
post of Electrician and where he has no duties to perform. He
submits that he, therefore, challenged Ext.P4 before this Court by
filing W.P.(C)No.3780/2021, which culminated in Ext.P5 judgment,
wherein, the Executive Committee of the RCC was directed to
reconsider his transfer and to allow him to continue at Trivandrum,
WP(C) NO. 12018 OF 2021
until the said exercise was over.
4. The petitioner submits that, however, the RCC thereafter
issued Ext.P6 order - though verbose - without proper application
of mind, reiterating his transfer to Palakkad. He asserts that
Ext.P6 is therefore, illegal and prays that same be set aside.
5. I notice from the files that when this matter was
considered by this Court for admission on 09.06.2021, the parties
were directed to maintain status quo, but on the next hearing date,
it was brought to my notice that petitioner has already been
transferred to Palakkad and that he had joined there under protest.
6. On 30.06.2021, the learned Standing Counsel for the
RCC - Sri.Athul Shaji, submitted that transfer of the petitioner,
through Exts.P4 and P6, is not a 'transfer simplicitor' and that his
post itself had been transferred to Palakkad. This submission was
obviously made by Sri.Athul Shaji to justify the contention of his
client that petitioner had been transferred to ECDC, Palakkad,
validly and as a counter to his allegation that there was no post of
Electrician therein.
7. Therefore, I issued a separate order on 14.07.2021 in
the following manner:
WP(C) NO. 12018 OF 2021
"Read order dated 30.06.2021.
Sri.Atul Shaji, learned SC for
the RCC, today submits that the
petitioner's transfer, contrary to what
was stated earlier, was one
simplicitor and the post has not been
transferred to Palakkad.
If the afore submission has now
taken into account, then it is clear
that the statement in Ext.P6 order of
the RCC is fallacious, because it is
stated specifically therein that when
the employers are transferred, their
posts are also transferred and
consequently, that the allegation that
'there is no post of Electrician at
ECDC, Palakkad is not sustainable'.
(sic)
At this time, the learned
Standing Counsel requested time to
confer with his client and to inform
this Court. "
8. When this matter was called today, Sri.Athul Shaji,
learned Standing Counsel for the RCC, conceded that there was no
proceedings available to show that the post in question had been
transferred to the ECDC, Palakkad. He, however, asserted that in
Ext.P6, it has been made clear that the post itself has been
transferred.
9. I am afraid that I cannot immediately grant approval to
the stand of the RCC as afore because, in Ext.P4, there is not even
WP(C) NO. 12018 OF 2021
a whisper that petitioner has been transferred to the ECDC,
Palakkad, along with the post. When this Court directed the RCC to
reconsider the said order through Ext.P5 judgment, they come
forth with Ext.P6, wherein, they adopted the stand that the post
has also been transferred. It is, therefore, that this Court passed
the afore extracted order directing them to place on record the
proceedings to show that the post had been indeed so transferred.
10. However, not merely as the RCC not produced any
document on record, but they expressly concede today that no such
transfer of post has taken place.
11. Ineluctably, therefore, the very basis of the petitioner's
transfer, as mentioned in Ext.P6, has been now obliterated and his
allegation that he has been transferred to a place where there is no
post of Electrician now appears to be completely fortified.
12. Furthermore, the specific allegation of the petitioner is
that he has been singled out for being transferred to Palakkad,
because he had earlier approached this Court through W.P.
(C)No.3114/2021, in which Ext.P3 interim order has been issued.
Though I do not propose to say one way or the other about this
allegation, am certain that this also must weigh with this Court
WP(C) NO. 12018 OF 2021
when his contentions regarding absence of a post in Palakkad to
accommodate him is evaluated.
13. As I have already said above, the basis of the transfer
order of the petitioner is that his post has been transferred to the
ECDC, Palakkad. When this has been found to be incorrect, I am
certain that the order of transfer itself must now fail.
Resultantly, I order this writ petition and set aside Exts.P4
and P6; with a resultant direction to the competent Authority of
the RCC to immediately re-post the petitioner to
Thiruvananthapuram. This shall be done without any delay but not
later than one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
It is needless to say that I have not dealt upon the power of
the RCC to effect transfer of the petitioner and that it will be up to
them to do so, provided it is done in conformity with the applicable
Rules and Regulations and after affording necessary opportunities
to the petitioner.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
rp
WP(C) NO. 12018 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12018/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF
ELECTRICAL INSPECTORATE TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
..07/2015 NO. A2-4944/15/E.I.T.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT NO.
RCC/255/2020-ADMN2 DATED 18/12/2020.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC NO.3114/2021
DATED 08/02/2021.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
NO.RCC/116/2019-SDIR DATED 10/02/2021.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WPC
NO.3114/2021 AND WPC NO. 3780/2021 DATED
23/03/2021.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND NO.
RCC/255/2020-ADMN4 DATED 17/04/2021.
