Ravikumar.K v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.15286 OF 2020** ## **PETITIONER:** **RAVIKUMAR.K AGED 47 YEARS** **ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER 11, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PPD REGIONAL OFFICE, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.** **BY ADVS. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY KUM.A.ARUNA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **2 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.** - **3 MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.** - **4 BIJEESH D, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (SDC), SECTOR DEVELOPMENT CELL, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.** - **5 SUDHEER M, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER I (IT) , OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (IT), KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.** **WP(C).No.15286 OF 2020** **2** **6 SHOBHA S, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER IV (P), OFFICE OF THE OF THE DEPUTY ENGINEER (PLANNING) KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.** **7 SREELEKHA V.R, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER 11 (WS), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (WORKS), KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **GP- BIJOY CHANDRAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.15286 OF 2020** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 27th day of July 2020 The petitioner inter-alia, seeks a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 transfer order to the extent it proposes to transfer the petitioner from Thiruvananthapuram to Malappuram. 2. The petitioner is presently working as Assistant Executive Engineer-II, at office of the Superintending Engineer of the 2nd respondentKerala Water Authority (in short “Authority”). 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was posted to the present station, only on 24.8.2017, as per order Ext.P1, which was issued pursuant to the directions of this Court in Ext.P2 judgment. 4. The petitioner is sought to be transferred before the completion of three years at the present station. In Ext.P3 order, the respondents 4 to 7 are retained at Thiruvananthapuram District. **WP(C).No.15286 OF 2020** **4** According to the petitioner, the retaining of the respondents 4 to 7 at Thiruvananthapuram, and the transferring of the petitioner to Malappuram is illegal, unjust and arbitrary. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P5 representation before the 3[rd] respondent, seeking the reconsideration of Ext.P3 order so far as relates to the petitioner. 5. Heard, Sri.Kaleeswarm Raj, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Bijoy Chandran the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for 1[st] respondent and Smt.Mary.Benjamin the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3. In view of the limited relief that I propose to pass, I dispense with notice to the respondents 4 to 7. 6. Undisputedly, by Ext.P3 proceedings passed by the 3[rd] respondent, the Authority has transfered sixty of its employees from the **WP(C).No.15286 OF 2020** **5** Headquarters office of the Authority to different Sub-Stations. The transfer and posting of the employees have been done on the part of the restructuring of the organisation; which has become essential for the speedy implementaiton of the Jal Jeevan Mission, launched by Government of India, which aims at providing functional household water connections to every rural household by the year, 2024. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner had been transfered to Perumbavoor to Thiruvananthapuram, on his request as evidenced by Ext.P1 order, pursuant to Ext.P2 judgment passed by this Court. Now, the petitioner who figures as the serial number 7 under the table of shifting of posts in Ext.P3, has been directed to be transferred from Thiruvananthapuram to Malappuram. 8. It is trite law that the scope of **WP(C).No.15286 OF 2020** **6** judicial review in matters relating to transfer is very limited. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision reported in **Union of India and another vs Deepak Niranjan Nath Pandit [(2020) 3 SCC 404]** has held thus: **“** 3. The High Court, in interfering with the order of transfer, has relied on two circumstances. Firstly, the High Court has noted that as a result of the stay on the order of transfer, the headquarters of the respondent will remain at Mumbai and even if he is to be suspended, his headquarters will continue to remain at Mumbai. The second reason, which has weighed with the High Court, is that the spouse of the respondent suffers from a cardiac ailment and is obtaining medical treatment in Mumbai. In our view, neither of these reasons can furnish a valid justification for the High Court to take recourse to its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in passing an order of injunction of this nature. Significantly, the High Court has not even found a prima facie case to the effect that the order of transfer **WP(C).No.15286 OF 2020** **7** was either mala fide or in breach of law. The High Court could not have dictated to the employer as to where the respondent should be posted during the period of suspension. Individual hardships are matters for the Union of India, as an employer, to take a dispassionate view. (emphasis given) 9. Taking into consideration the fact the Ext.P3 has been issued for the restructuring of the staff to accomplish the mission of the Government of India and also keeping in mind the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the above cited decision, I am of the considered opinion that it is not for this court to substitute the wisdom of the Authority in the management and administration of its employees. Neverthless, considering the fact that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P5 representation before the 3[rd] respondent, who is the competent authority to decide whether any **WP(C).No.15286 OF 2020** **8** leniency has to be shown in the case of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to direct the 3[rd] respondent to consider Ext.P5 representation, as expeditiously possible, at any rate on or before 03.08.2020. The petitioner is at liberty to forthwith produce a copy of this judgment along with the copy of the writ petition before the 3[rd] respondent, who shall do the needful before the above stipulated date. As Ext.P5 is pending consideration, I leave it to the discretion of the 3[rd] respondent to decide whether the petitioner is to be unsettled before a decision is taken on Ext.P5. With the above observations the writ petition is disposed of. **Sd/-** **C.S.DIAS JUDGE** ska **WP(C).No.15286 OF 2020** **9** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO KWA/JB/E.2(A) 2316/2017 DATED 16.8.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.7.2017 IN WPC NO 21940/2017 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO KWA/JD/MD/101/2020 DATED 23.7.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO KWA/PPD/REGIONAL/GI/2020 DATED 24.7.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER BEFORE THE TECHNICAL MEMBER, KWA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.7.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT**