Dismissed

C.P.Sajan v. the Chairman, Cape

Kerala HC18 Mar 2016WP(C)/2733/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the transfer of the petitioner, an Instructor Grade II, from Thalassery to Vadakara. The petitioner sought reinstatement to Thalassery, citing a newly created contract basis post there. The Court held that transfer and re-consideration are administrative matters within employer discretion unless arbitrary or illegal, thus dismissing the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

C.P.Sajan Vs the Chairman, Cape — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/28TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 2733 of 2016 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

C.P.SAJAN S/O C. VISHWANATHAN, AGED 46 YEARS RESIDING AT VISHWANATH, SADANANDAPAI ROAD, P.O.CHIRAKKARA, THALASSERY KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM) SRI.K.R.GANESH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

THE CHAIRMAN, CO-OPERATIVE ACADEMY OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION (CAPE) TRIVANDRUM.

¶11

THE DIRECTOR, CO-OPERATIVE ACADEMY OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION(CAPE) TRIVANDRUM.

¶12

THE PRINCIPAL,.COLELGE OF ENGINEERING, ERANHOLI, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE PRINCIPAL,COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,VADAKARA.

¶14

R BY SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON, SC, CAPE

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 2733 of 2016 (N)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY FO THE ORDER NO.E3-1174/2015/CAPE/1999 DATED 22.06.2015 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR.

¶20

EXT.P2:A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.E3-1278/2015/CAPE/2565 DATED 23.07.2015 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR.

¶21

EXT.P3:A TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.E3-777/2014/CAPE DATED 25.07.2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXT.P4:A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 04.08.2015 MADE BY THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER ALONG WITH THE DISCHARGE CARD OF THE WIFE OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE PARIYARAM MEDICAL COLLEGE, BEFROE THE CHAIRMAN CAPE.

¶23

EXT.P5:A TRUE COPY FO REPLY LETTER NO.E-336/2013/902 DATED 05.08.2015 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER IN THE ENGINEERING COLLEGE, THALASSERY.

¶24

EXT.P6:A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 28.10.2015 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXT.P7:A TRUE COPY REPLY LETTER NO.G1-5075/2015/CAPE/4121 DATED 18.11.2015 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,CAPE.

¶26

EXT.P7(A):A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E5/1925(1)/2014/CAPE/2733 DATED 02.08.2014 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR.

¶27

EXT.P7(B):A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E3/1278/2015/CAPE/1886 DATED 15.06.2015 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR.

¶28

EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF MARK LIST PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE OF CAPE

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A TO JUDGE

jma

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 2733 of 2016

¶35

¶36

Dated this the 18^th day of March, 2016

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

The petitioner is an Instructor Grade II , who was

¶39

transferred to Vadakara on the ground that there was no Civil Engineering Department in Thalassery. The petitioner on the basis of Exts.P1 and P2 contends that now there is a post of Instructor in the Civil Engineering Department created in Thalassery and he has to be transferred back to Thalassery. The petitioner only seeks consideration of Ext.P6 representation.

¶40

The learned Standing Counsel submits that there is

¶41

absolutely no requirement for such consideration. The petitioner

¶42

cannot be posted to Thalassery since the post created there is only sought to be filled up on contract basis which is evident from

¶43

Ext.P1. Ext.P1 would indicate that the post created was permitted to

¶44

be filled up on contract basis. This was the notification made as

per Ext.P2.

WPC.No.2733/2016

: Page numbers :

Further the petitioner cannot have any lien on the

¶49

particular post from which he was transferred. The petitioner is a regular employee, who was transferred in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Organisation. The transfer was not in any manner against the rule or by an authority who was not competent to make the transfer. There are also no grounds of malafides raised. In such circumstance, this Court would not interfere with the transfer nor would direct consideration of a re-transfer to a post earlier occupied by the petitioner. These are all administrative matters which have to be decided at the discretion of the employer and no interference can be caused unless there is blatant arbitrariness or illegality.

¶50

Writ petition would stand dismissed. No costs.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)

¶53

jma

¶54

//true copy//

¶55

P.A to Judge

C.P.Sajan v. the Chairman, Cape

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

C.P.Sajan v. the Chairman, Cape

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Thomas Koilparampil Vs Govt.Body of Rcc

State Planning Board Staff Co.Op.Society Vs State Planning Board

C.H.Usha Vs State of Kerala

Padmanabhan Namboodiri Vs Guruvayoor Devaswom

Abhilash.S Vs Cochin Devaswom Board

K.P.Pavithran Vs K.S.E.B.