Dismissed

M.N.Madhusoodanan Namboodiri v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Kerala HC14 Oct 2014WA/1354/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ appeal filed by a Santhi employee challenging his transfer order. The Court held that the appellant's original complaint was misplaced as his first choice of posting was a different location, and the transfer to Puliyankulangara was valid given the retirement norms of the retiring respondent.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal is dismissed as there is no legal right to challenge the order of transfer under the given circumstances.

M.N.Madhusoodanan Namboodiri Vs Travancore Devaswom… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/22ND ASWINA, 1936

¶6

WA.No. 1354 of 2014 IN WP(C).17820/2014

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 17820/2014 DATED 07-08-2014 ....................

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER :

¶9

M.N.MADHUSOODANAN NAMBOODIRI, MELSANTHI, PULIYANKULANGARA DEVASOM, KULASEKHARAPURAM SUB GROUP, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KARUNAGAPPALLY GROUP, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.N.SUKUMARAN (SR.) SRI.S.SHYAM SRI.N.K.KARNIS

¶11

RESPONDENTS :

¶12

TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANTHANKODE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.

¶13

DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,

¶14

TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 003.

¶15

ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER

¶16

KARUNAGAPPALLY GROUP, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

¶17

KARUNAGAPPALLY, PIN 690 518.

¶18

G.SREEKUMAR,

¶19

MELSANTHI, KUMARANCHIRA DEVASWOM, KUMARANCHIRA KARUNAGAPPALLY GROUP, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD PIN 690,518.

¶20

R1 TO R3 BY SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU, SC, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

¶21

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WA.No. 1354 of 2014 IN WP(C).17820/2014

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS :

¶25

ANNEXRE A1 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.07.2014.

¶26

ANNEXURE A1(A) : TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A1.

¶27

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE

ASHOK BHUSHAN, Ag.C.J. & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶32

¶33

W.A. No. 1354 OF 2014

¶34

- - - - Dated this the 14^th day of October, 2014

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Shaffique, J.

¶37

The writ petitioner has filed this appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 17820 of 2014 dated 07.08.2014. The Writ Petition was filed challenging paragraph 6 of Ext.P5 order, transferring the 4^th respondent to Puliyankulangara and requesting to accommodate the petitioner at Puliyankulangara.

¶38

The facts involved in the case show that the petitioner was working as Santhi in Puliyankulangara Devaswom and he had completed three years. He was due to transfer in the year 2014. On account of certain ailments he submitted a representation, Ext.P3, before the competent authority and taking into consideration his request, his name

¶39

was not included in the General Transfer list. However, subsequently in an appeal against the transfer order filed by the 4^th respondent, the 4^th respondent was permitted to continue at Puliyankulangara. This has created a situation

¶40

WA No. 1354 of 2014

¶41

where the petitioner will be displaced from the choice he had given. Petitioner, therefore approached this Court by filing the above writ petition.

¶42

The learned Single Judge observed that in so far as there is no mala fides in the order of transfer, this Court cannot interfere with the same. However, it was mentioned that during the pendency of the writ petition the claim of the petitioner was re-considered and an order has been passed on 17.07.2014 giving the petitioner his first choice of posting at Kamankulangara Devaswom.

¶43

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner contends that already by Ext.P4, his request for retaining him at Puliyankulangara was approved by the Commissioner and therefore, there was no reason to disturb the said posting. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 4^th respondent contended that the 4^th respondent, who was about to retire, had a rightful claim in respect of posting at Puliyankulangara and even as per the norms, he is entitled to

¶44

WA No. 1354 of 2014

¶45

-:3:-

¶46

continue in the said post. In the appeal filed by 4^th respondent the matter was re-considered and he was given posting at Puliyankulangara itself taking into consideration the norms available with the Devaswom Board. Therefore, it is a case where the transfer order had been issued in accordance with the norms by giving an opportunity to the 4^th respondent to be posted at Puliyankulangara, till his date of retirement.

¶47

As far as the petitioner is concerned, his first choice was Kamankulangara which was considered and direction had been issued as Annexure A1 placing him in the said post. Under such circumstances, when the petitioner's first choice itself was Kamankulangara, petitioner cannot raise any complaint regarding the same. So far as his claim to retain in Puliyankulangara is concerned, an opportunity was given to continue in the said post, but it so happened that there was a rightful claimant to the said post, since the 4^th respondent was about to retire and as per the norms, an opportunity had to be given to him, at the place of his choice.

¶48

WA No. 1354 of 2014

¶49

-:4:-

¶50

Under these circumstances, we do not think that the petitioner has any legal right to challenge the order of transfer.

¶51

Accordingly, there is no merit in the Writ Appeal and the same is dismissed.

¶52

Ashok Bhushan, Acting Chief Justice.

¶53

A.M. Shaffique, Judge.

¶54

ttb/14/10

M.N.Madhusoodanan Namboodiri v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.N.Madhusoodanan Namboodiri v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Celene Joy Vs the Kerala State Election Commission

Haji a.Safarudeen Vs State of Kerala and Others

Damodaran Nambisan Vs Cochin Devaswom Board

K.v.Varghese Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Ntpc Limited Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs the Human Rights Commission