Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDismissed

Saji A., Reji A.V., Anil S., and Rajeev Kumar G. v. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited, its Managing Director, and State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) 7310 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date
2023-03-13
Court Decision / Holding
The petition is devoid of any real subsisting grievance; there is no case of illegal or biased transfers; the court dismissed the writ petition.
Final Disposition
Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Saji A
  • Reji A.V
  • Anil S
  • Rajeev Kumar G

Respondents

  • The Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited ( KSFE ), registered office, Bhadratha, Museum Road, Thrissur, represented by its Managing Director
  • The Managing Director, Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited, Bhadratha, Museum Road, Thrissur
  • State of Kerala represented by the Principal Secretary to Government Taxes Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Gopakumar R. Thaliyal
  • • T. S. Rajasenan
  • • R. B. Balachandran

Counsels for Respondents

  • • M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar
  • • Anima M.

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, four employees of KSFE, challenged their transfers, seeking finalisation and implementation of Ext.P1 Transfer Norms for 2023. They argued that KSFE had drafted Transfer Norms in 2017 and revised them in 2022, but neither version was finalised, leaving transfers to be made arbitrarily. They relied on the principle in Vimal Kumari v. State of Haryana and Others to contend that the Respondents must follow the Draft Rules until final norms are approved and that transfers must follow a transparent framework, not whim and fancy. Exhibits P6 and P7 allegedly show transfers and cancellations carried out in an arbitrary manner. The petition asserted that KSFE, as a State instrumentality, must act fairly and reasonably with due process and consultation. The respondents contended that petitioners were recently promoted and transferred in connection with their new posts, and must serve a minimum two-year tenure in the promoted post before seeking reassignment; the Draft Norms are under discussion and require stakeholder consultation, so no definite timeline can be fixed. The Court found that the petitioners did not have a real subsisting grievance, noted the transfers were not shown to be illegal or biased, and dismissed the petition as devoid of merit, indicating that the normative framework would continue to evolve without granting relief.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argue that there are no finalized Transfer Norms and that the respondents are bound to finalise and implement Ext.P1 Transfer Norms for 2023. Citing Vimal Kumari v. State of Haryana, they contend the rules drafted in 2017 and revised in 2022 should govern transfers until final norms are approved, preventing arbitrary transfers. They point to Exts.P6 and P7 as evidence of arbitrary transfers and cancellations, and insist KSFE must act in a fair, reasonable, and transparent manner with due consultation before transfers.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the petitioners were promoted about five months earlier and transferred to fulfill the requirements of their promoted posts. They assert that petitioners have yet to complete a two-year tenure in the promoted post and thus lack a subsisting grievance. They maintain that the Draft Norms are under discussion and require stakeholder consultation, so a definite timeline cannot be fixed. Transfers should be guided by established practice rather than a judicial directive to finalise norms immediately; the petition is not maintainable as PIL since the norms are in discussion and not finalised.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Vimal Kumari v. State of Haryana and others[(1998) 4 SCC 114]PositiveCited to support the proposition that the respondents have a duty to follow the Draft Transfer Norms until those norms are finalised.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Saji A., Reji A.V., Anil S., and Rajeev Kumar G. v. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited, its Managing Director, and State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH`** ``` MONDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 7310 OF 2023 ``` ## **`PETITIONERS:`** - **`1 SAJI . A AGED 47 YEARS S/O. APPU .T, JUNIOR ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, 4TH BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA, RESIDING AT SIVASREE, UTHARAMCODE, KUTTICHAL, KOTTOOR (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ., PIN - 695574`** - **`2 REJI.A.V AGED 42 YEARS S/O. AUGUSTIN, JUNIOR ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, NOORANAD BRANCH, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KUZHIVILAKATHU HOUSE, CHULLIMANOOR (P.O), NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ., PIN - 695541`** - **`3 ANIL.S AGED 43 YEARS S/O. SASIDHARAN, JUNIOR ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, 2ND BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA, RESIDING AT SAPASYA NILAYAM, VELLAPPALLI, NARUVAMOODU (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ., PIN - 695528`** - **`4 RAJEEV KUMAR.G AGED 36 YEARS S/O. GOPAKUMAR.T, JUNIOR ASSISTANT,`** ``` KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, 1ST BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA, RESIDING AT UDININNAVILA VEEDU, PULIYOORKONAM, PAYATTUVILA (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ., PIN – 695501 ``` ``` BY ADVS. GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL T.S.RAJASENAN R.B.BALACHANDRAN ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 7310 OF 2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE, `BHADRATHA,' MUSEUM ROAD, P.B. NO. 510, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 680020`** - **`2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE, `BHADRATHA,' MUSEUM ROAD, P.B NO. 510, THRISSUR-680 020.`** - **`3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 002`** ``` BY ADV M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR- R1 & R2 SMT.ANIMA M-GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 7310 OF 2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 13[th] day of March, 2023 The writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking to direct the respondents to finalise and implement Ext.P1 Transfer Norms in the 1[st] respondent-Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited (KSFE) for the general transfer of employees for the year 2023. 2. The petitioners are serving in the 1[st] respondentKSFE. The petitioners state that the respondents are effecting transfers without following any norms and according to their whims and fancies. 3. In the year 2017, Draft Transfer Norms were made. The said draft was not finalised. Subsequently, in the year 2022, yet another revised draft was prepared to govern Transfers. The said Draft Rules are also not finalised to the detriment of the employees. ``` WP(C) NO. 7310 OF 2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` 4. According to the petitioners, the respondents are bound to finalise the Draft Rules and act only in accordance with those Rules. The petitioners would further submit that in the light of the judgment in _**Vimal Kumari v. State of Haryana and others** [(1998) 4 SCC 114]_ , the respondents have a duty to follow the Draft Rules until those are finalised. The respondents cannot resort to transfers according to their whims and fancies. 5. The petitioners further urged that Exts.P6 and P7 would show that the respondents are acting in a highly arbitrary manner, effecting transfers and cancelling the transfer orders at the drop of a hat. This cannot be permitted. 6. The respondents are instrumentalities of the State and should act in a fair and reasonable manner. In the matter of transfer, admittedly there are no norms at present. The respondents are therefore compellable to finalise Ext.P1 Transfer Norms and to effect transfers for the year 2023 only as per the Transfer Norms. ``` WP(C) NO. 7310 OF 2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` 7. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioners were promoted about five months ago and for the purpose of promotion, they were transferred and posted to the new Stations, where their services were required in the promoted post. In view of the principles followed by the respondents, the petitioners have to work for a minimum period of two years in the promoted post before seeking transfer to other Stations. The petitioners are yet to complete the minimum two years tenure. 8. It is further submitted that the petitioners do not have any subsisting grievance. It is only when the petitioners are transferred or when the petitioners’ request for transfer is not considered, the petitioners can have any grievance. 9. As regards the finalisation of the Transfer Norms, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the Draft Transfer Norms are at a discussion stage. The respondents ``` WP(C) NO. 7310 OF 2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` have to make consultation with various stake holders including associations of the employees. Therefore, a definite time limit cannot be given for finalisation of Draft Norms. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader representing the 3[rd] respondent. 11. It is to be noted that the petitioners were transferred for posting on promotion about five months ago. The petitioners have no case that they have been transferred illegally or in a biased manner. The petitioners have no case that their applications for transfer are not considered by the respondents. The allegation that the respondents have effected certain transfers as per Exts.P6 and P7 in an arbitrary manner, will not by itself give any right to the petitioners to seek for finalisation of Draft Norms, which are under discussion. The petitioners cannot agitate this issue in the manner in which a public interest litigation is agitated. ``` WP(C) NO. 7310 OF 2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` This Court find that the petitioners do not have any real subsisting grievance. The writ petition is therefore devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed. sd/- **N.NAGARESH JUDGE** hmh ``` WP(C) NO. 7310 OF 2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7310/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS`** ``` Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT OF THE TRANSFER NORMS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN 2022 Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 04.02.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.02.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21.02.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibi P6TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER DATED 09.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER DATED 10.02.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS : NIL ```