AMBIKA M P Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an Assistant Engineer (Works) presently working at Roads and Buildings, Central Circle, Aluva. As per Ext.P1 she was transferred to Puzhakkal Road Section in Thrissur District and the 3rd respondent who was working at Roads Section, Puzhakkal in Thrissur District was transferred to Roads and Buildings, Central Circle, Aluva. Thus, in effect it is a mutual transfer. In Ext.P1 it is stated that the transfers and postings have been effected on administrative convenience. The petitioner contends that the said reason assigned in Ext.P1 is not true to facts and that, as relates herself and the 3rd respondent, it was passed only on the request of the 3rd respondent. In short, according to the petitioner the convenience taken into consideration is not the administrative convenience whilst it is the convenience of the 3rd respondent. The further contention is that the first respondent lacks jurisdiction to pass such a special order on compassionate grounds as the power to issue orders of transfer in relaxation of the norms and, especially, on compassionate grounds, is solely vested with the Government.

(2.) As noticed herein before, contentions of the petitioner is that the reason stated in Ext.P1 is not true to the facts and in fact, the petitioner and the 3rd respondent were mutually transferred based on the request of the 3rd respondent. Even while raising the aforesaid contentions and the other contentions regarding the right of the first respondent to effect transfers disregarding the norms and to issue special orders like Ext.P1, on compassionate grounds the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, in the light of Ext.P2, prepares to limit the prayer to defer the implementation of Ext.P1 order to the extent it relates to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent till the end of the academic year to enable her daughter to complete the 8th standard. In that context it is contended that by the time the respondents could also consider her request for transfer made as per Ext.P2.

(3.) The 3rd respondent herein has filed a counter affidavit. The learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the 3rd respondent is not amenable to the suggestion of the petitioner to defer the implementation of the order and the 3rd respondent, in fact, insists for immediate implementation of Ext.P1 order of transfer. It is submitted that the transfer was made at the request of the 3rd respondent. Relying on Ext.R3(a) and (b) it is contended that the 3rd respondent really deserves a sympathetic consideration.