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
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
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.
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
Gopinathan v. State of Kerala (2014 (4) KLT 285)
Sivaramakrishnan v. State of Kerala (2008 (3) KLT Suppl.54 )
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
