S. Rajeev vs The Travancore Devaswom Board
2023 Latest Caselaw 6554 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
  TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1945
                     WP(C) NO. 18409 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

         S. RAJEEV
         AGED 51 YEARS
         S/O.SIVARAMAPILLAI,
         'RAJEEVAM', JANARDHANAPURAM
         KILITHATTUMUKKU,VARKALA P.O
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695141.

          BY ADVS.
          JELSON J.EDAMPADAM
          K.G.RAJEESH


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
          NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695003.

    2     THE DEVASWOM BOARD COMMISSIONER
          TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
          NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695003.

    3     THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER
          TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
          VARKALA, VARKALA P.O.,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695141.

          BY ADV.G.BIJU- S.C


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.18409 of 2023
                                  2


                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 13th day of June, 2023

The petitioner, who is working as Watcher under the Varkala

Group, is aggrieved by Ext.P3 impugned order, whereby the

petitioner stands transferred to Sharkara Devaswom.

2. The petitioner states that he was working as Watcher in

Varkala Group. During the general transfers, the petitioner

submitted options, preferring Varkala as the first choice and Minor

Kulathoopuzha as the second choice. In the general transfers, the

petitioner was posted at Minor Kulathoopuzha.

3. The petitioner states that there was a vacancy of

Watcher in Varkala Devaswom and therefore the petitioner

submitted an appeal insisting for posting in the first choice station.

To the surprise and predicament of the petitioner, the petitioner's

appeal has been disposed of posting the petitioner at Sharkara

Devaswom. Sharkara Devaswom is a faraway place and it would W.P.(C) No.18409 of 2023

cause undue hardship to the petitioner if he is posted there.

4. Standing Counsel entered appearance and resisted the

writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, all the statements

made by the petitioner in the writ petition were denied. It is

submitted that the petitioner was posted at his choice station at

Minor Kulathoopuzha. The petitioner was not satisfied with his

posting at Minor Kulathoopuzha and filed an appeal. In such

circumstances, the petitioner was posted at an alternative place at

Sharkara.

5. On behalf of the respondents, it is further submitted that

transfer is a condition of service and the same cannot be

challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless

there is violation of any statutory rules or patent malafide in the

matter. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.

6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents. W.P.(C) No.18409 of 2023

7. The petitioner, during the general transfers, had opted

for Varkala and Minor Kulathoopuzha as first and second choices,

respectively. The petitioner was posted at Minor Kulathoopuzha.

Even at that time, a vacancy of Watcher existed in Varkala and

therefore the petitioner submitted an appeal for posting at Varkala.

To the surprise of the petitioner, the appeal has been disposed of

rejecting the request of the petitioner, at the same time,

transferring the petitioner to yet another place, namely, Sharkara.

The petitioner would submit that the appellate order is stigmatic

and the petitioner will be put to undue hardship if he is posted at

Sharkara.

7. I find that originally the petitioner was posted at Minor

Kulathoopuzha. When an appeal was filed by the petitioner for

posting at a nearer place, namely, Varkala, the petitioner has

been transferred to Sharkara. In an appeal filed by the petitioner,

whether such a punitive measure can be taken is a matter of W.P.(C) No.18409 of 2023

concern. However, this Court is of the opinion that taking into

consideration the afore facts, the 2nd respondent shall reconsider

the appellate order.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of setting aside

Ext.P3 appellate order to the extent it applies to the petitioner and

directing the 2nd respondent to take a decision afresh, within a

period of four weeks. Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board

submits that if the petitioner is willing to join Minor Kulathoopuzha

Devaswom, in the meanwhile, the petitioner can join there, subject

to orders to be passed. This statement is recorded.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE ams W.P.(C) No.18409 of 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18409/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF TEH PROCEEDINGS DATED 17.04.2023 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT, TRANSFERRING THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 20.04.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.

R.O.C.13/23/MIS. A DATED 19.05.2023, OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.11.2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.22030 OF 2020, OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 01.06.2023 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT