Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2013 10TH ASHADHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 13959 of 2013 (T) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- M.BABY MARRAR, AGED 4 YEARS S/O.NARAYANA PANICKER, INSTRUCTOR, KSHETHRAKALA PEEDAM VAIKOM.RESIDING AT MOOLETHAZATHU HOUSE CHIRAKKADAVU CENTRE P.O., PONKUNNAM KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 519. BY ADVS.SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. DIRECTOR CULTURAL DIRECTOR OFFICE, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARTD NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
2. SERETARY TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
3. MANAGER VAIKKOM KSHETHRAKALA PEEDAM, VAIKKOM P.O. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 141.
4. P.PRAKASAN INSTRUCTOR, ATTINGAL KSHETRAKALA PEEDAM ATTINGAL-695 101.
5. C.PADMAKUMAR INSTRUCTOR, ATTINGAL KSHETRAKALA PEEDAM ATTINGAL-695 101. R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU, SC, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 13959 of 2013 (T) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS --------------------------- EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE ORDER OF TRANSFER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DIRECTOR 0 THE CULTURAL DIRECTOR OFFICE, DATED 9 5.2013,. EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE, DATED 5 11.1986 ISSUED BY KSHETRA KALA PEETOM ACADEMY TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY KSHETRAKALA PEEDAM, DATED 12 11.1989 TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ROC 5852/92/CA DATED 12 8.1992 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD. EXHIBIT P5. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM ERNAKULAM MEDICAL CENTRE DATED 26 4.2007. EXHIBIT P6. COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE DISTRICT HOSPITAL KOTTAYAM DATED 7 5.2013. EXHIBIT P7.COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE RING THAT HAS BEEN PUT ON THE PETITIONERS LEG. EXHIBIT P8. COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PRESENT SITUATION OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P9. COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD, DATED 15 5.2013. EXHIBIT P10. COPY OF THE ORDER NO.R.O.C.6130/13CA, DATED 3 6.2013 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL ------------------------------ // TRUE COPY // TKS P.S. TO JUDGE C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.
---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.13959 of 2013 ---------------------------- Dated 1st July, 2013 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an Instructor attached to the Kshetrakala Peetom, Vaikom. This writ petition has been filed on being aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of transfer. Earlier, he filed Ext.P9 appeal before the Secretary of the Board against Ext.P1 order. Subsequent to the filing of this writ petition Ext.P9 appeal was taken up by the second respondent and Ext.P10 order was passed thereon. As per Ext.P10, the request of the petitioner was rejected. Consequently, the petitioner amended the writ petition to mount challenge against Ext.P10 as well. It is the contention of the petitioner that as per Ext.P1 he was transferred to a far away place and in fact, the said place situates at a distance of 190 Kms. from his home station. It is his further contention that he is physically unfit to undertake such a long and arduous journey and to support such contention regarding his physical ailment he has produced Exts.P6 and P7. Ext.P6 is the disability certificate which would certify that the person is having a disability of 40%. Ext.P7 is a photograph which reveals the pathetic plight of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that while passing Ext.P10 the second respondent has not taken into account the ailment of the petitioner and the appeal was rejected solely on the ground that respondents 4 and 5 are having more WP(C).No.13959/2013 2 station seniority and they applied for transfer. A perusal of Ext.P10 would reveal that the request of the petitioner in Ext.P9 was considered. On such consideration, it was found that respondents 4 and 5 are having more station seniority than the petitioner. It was on consideration of their request for transfer that they have been given transfer to their places of choice. That apart, it is submitted by the learned standing counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board that for the past several years the petitioner had been working in Kshetrakala Peetom, Vaikom. It is further stated by the learned standing counsel that no employee can as a matter of right claim that he should be permitted to work at a particular station for ever. Per contra the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the respondents should have considered the pathetic hardship of the petitioner while considering Ext.P9 appeal. In the context of the contentions it is relevant to refer to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of M.P. and Another v. S.S.Kourav and Others ((1995) 3 SCC 270). In the said decision it is held thus:- "The Court cannot go into the question of relative hardship and the same will not be a ground for judicial review as it is for the administration to consider WP(C).No.13959/2013 3 the facts of a given case and mitigate the real hardship in the interest of good and efficient administration." Therefore, it is evident that there is little scope for judicial review of Ext.P10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that taking into account the pendency of this writ petition the petitioner has not joined duty at the transferred place and that, now, a show cause notice has been issued to him as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him for unauthorised absence. Considering the physical state of the petitioner revealed from Exts.P6 and P7 and also the fact that this case has been pending consideration I am of the view that it is only appropriate for the respondents to permit the petitioner in case he is desirous to join duty at the transferred place, within three days from today. In the light of the decision in State of M.P. and Another v. S.S.Kourav and Others (supra) I am of the view that there is no scope for interference with Ext.P10. Nonetheless, in the light of Exts.P6 and P7 I am of the view that after joining duty at the transferred place the petitioner shall be left at liberty to approach the respondents with a prayer to give transfer to any other place wherein there is vacancy to accommodate the petitioner. WP(C).No.13959/2013 4 In case the petitioner submits such a representation after joining at the transferred place the same shall be considered sympathetically and expeditiously. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS