SEENA K Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this writ petition is with regard to Ext.P2 transfer order, whereby the petitioner has been displaced from Ernakulam to Kozhikode, while the 3rd respondent who is stated as having longer station seniority has been retained and hence under challenge.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that, she is working as an Executive Engineer and was permitted to join duty at Ernakulam nearly one year and ten months back; prior to which she was working at Kannur. It is stated that her husband is working at Nadapuram and there is nobody to look after affairs in the family. Considering the request made by the petitioner, she was given a transfer and posting from Kannur to Ernakulam and it was accordingly that she joined the station earlier. Shortly afterwards, she stands transferred as per Ext.P2 order, to a far off place at Kozhikode, contrary to the relevant norms issued by the Board itself as borne by Ext.P1, without enabling the petitioner to complete the minimum tenure of three years at Ernakulam.

(3.) WITH regard to the retention of the 3rd respondent, it is stated in paragraph '9' that the 3rd respondent is an experienced hand in the 'distribution side' and hence retained at Ernakulam, though he is a native of Alappuzha. Reliance is also sought to be placed on Clause '8' of Ext.P1 guidelines which stipulates that, notwithstanding any thing mentioned above, the Board reserves the right to transfer or retain any officer in any place in the interest of career planning, or considering the exceptional skill, qualification in a specialised area of an officer or in exigencies of service of public interest. Referring to the credentials, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner also does have sufficient experience in the 'distribution side' and that, Annexure R1(a) reveals that the 3rd respondent has been retained in Ernakulam for more than 19 years, but for two short spells of few months elsewhere.