IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013 21ST SRAVANA, 1935 OP(KAT).No. 2725 of 2013 (Z) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 1579/2012 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 03 07-2013 PETITIONER(S)/2ND RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------- M. HAKKIM SUB REGISTRAR, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PIN:691 530. BY ADVS.SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND SMT.L.AMMU PILLAI RESPONDENT(S)/APPLICANT & 1ST RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. G.VINODKUMAR SUB REGISTRAR, PERINAD, RANNY PERINAD P.O. PATHANAMTHITA DISTRICT PIN:689 711 (FORMERLY WORKING AS SUB REGISTRAR, KOZHENCHERRY).
2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISRATION, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN:695 035. R2 BY ADV.SHRI.NOBLE MATHEW, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER R1 BY SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(KAT).No. 2725 of 2013 (Z) ----------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF O.A.NO.1579 OF 201.FILED BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF REPLY STATMENT FILED BY PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT P1. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF ORDER NO.E1.21316/2012 DATED 19 11.2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF ORDER IN O.A.1579/2012 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF REPRESENTATION ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES EXCEPT ANNEXURE-A1. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ.
.................................................................... OP(KAT) No.2725 of 2013 .................................................................... Dated this the 12th day of August, 2013. JUDGMENT
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1.Petitioner, who was the 2nd respondent before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, has filed this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Tribunal's decision quashing an order of the Inspector General of Registration giving the petitioner transfer and posting as Sub Registrar, Adoor. The first respondent herein moved the Tribunal alleging that the IG's order is issued, not on an independent assessment of relevant facts, but being carried away by the observations made by this Court in some judgments rendered in relation to claims for transfer. It is also pointed out that there was an earlier order of the Administrative Tribunal regarding the claim of transfer of the first respondent herein. OP(KAT) 2725/13 -2- 2.After hearing the elaborate submissions on behalf of the petitioner-M.Hakkim and the first respondent-G.Vinodkumar, we are of the view that we should refrain from elaborately dealing with the rival claims on facts, to posting at Adoor. While Hakkim projects a case of his personal requirements in connection with his ailments and education of his two daughters in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Adoor, and inability of his wife, who is a nursing staff in the Pathanamthitta Government Hospital, to attend to the affairs of the daughters; Vinodkumar, who is due to retire in early 2015, has certain requirements in connection with transportation and that he, being the senior most, desires to retire from Adoor, which is the station nearer to his residence. While we notice the aforesaid facts, it also appears that Vinodkumar, during the pendency of the original application before the Tribunal, was transferred to Perunad. That order deals with transfer and posting of different officers. It contains a sentence about some requests. There is controversy between Hakkim and Vinodkumar as to whether that transfer order was generated on a request of OP(KAT) 2725/13 -3- Vinodkumar or not, insofar as his transfer is concerned. 3.Transfer and posting are matters, essentially, within the administrative domain. They are matters intrinsically and intricately connected with management of the service. Insofar as the Government service is concerned, top priorities have to be public interest and administrative exigencies. Personal considerations for priorities and rival claims for transfer and posting to a particular station have to be weighed by the competent authority, without, in any manner, impairing the public requirements and exigencies of service. The Head of Department is the competent authority to do it. In doing so, the Head of Department need not be swayed by any observations, if at all made, by any judicial authority, unless those expressions in judicial orders are so issue specific that the administrative authorities are required, under the command of the particular judicial order, to act in terms thereof. Otherwise, judicial orders cannot be utilised as a cover to whittle down administrative authority of the Head of Department to consider cohesively and OP(KAT) 2725/13 -4- comprehensively the requirements in connection with claims for transfers. It is not for the judiciary to weigh such matters, except in exceptional cases. 4.Having noted the law as aforesaid, the rival claims of Hakkim and Vinodkumar have to be considered in the context of all relevant facts and factors, untrammelled by anything stated in the earlier judicial orders, either of this Court or of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, including any observation made in the order impugned in this original petition. This clarification by us takes away the apprehension sounded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the IG's order has been quashed by the Tribunal, the IG is likely to stand persuaded, as if the order has to be made in favour of Vinodkumar. This apprehension, in our view, is quite misplaced. We are sure that IG of Registration knows his job better, including as the Head of Department. With the aforesaid, this original petition is dismissed, however, directing the parties to mark appearance in the Office of the IG of OP(KAT) 2725/13 -5- Registration on 23.08.2013. The IG of Registration will issue orders afresh, taking all the relevant aspects into consideration. Until this process is undertaken, status quo as on the date of pronouncement of the impugned order by the Tribunal will continue. (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) jg