VEDAVYASAN V B Vs. STATE OF KERALA; GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING; ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM; DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR; K V PRAKASAN; T K SURESH, PASHUPALAKAN; ASOKAN, PASHUPALAKAN, KAVEEDU GOKULAM; UNNI NARAYANAN, PASHUPALAKAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Pashupalakan working under the Guruvayur Devaswom. The grievance raised by him in the writ petition was against Ext.P8 order. The said order was passed rejecting Ext.P7 representation filed by the appellant based on the direction of this court in Ext.P6 judgment.

(2.) The grievance raised in Ext.P7 was regarding his transfer to Vengad Gokulam from Kaveed Gokulam. According to the appellant, his physical condition is not that good to work in Vengad Gokulam, where the area is large and the number of cows are larger, when compared to Kaveed Gokulam. By Ext.P8, the Administrator of the Devaswom communicated the decision of the Devaswom Board to the appellant, rejecting his representation. So, the writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P8.

(3.) The learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the impugned order. This court can interfere with a transfer order only on limited grounds. If the transfer is illegal or vitiated by malafides, this court may interfere with the same. We find that no such ground has been made in the writ petition. If the physical condition of the appellant is such that he cannot work, he may go on leave and undergo treatment to improve his physical condition, and then join duty. If he is physically fit to join duty, he should work, where the services of the appellant are required by his employer. The appellant cannot be heard to say that he is medically fit to work at Kaveed and not fit to work at Vengad. In the matter of deployment of Pashupalakan, this court cannot interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed.