GIRIDETH KUMAR G. Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is working as a Sub -Engineer at the Electrical Circle Office, Kollam. With the prior permission and approval of the

(2.) ND respondent, the petitioner is pursuing his B.Tech Degree Course (Part time) at the Thangal Kunju Musaliar College of Engineering, Kollam. As per Ext.P6, the petitioner has been transferred from his present station to the Electrical Circle, Nilambur. According to the petitioner, the above order of transfer would disrupt his studies and would cause irreparable injury and loss to him. The petitioner places reliance on Ext.P1 guidelines to point out that Board employees who are undergoing part time courses with the prior approval and sanction of the competent authorities of the Board are not liable to be transferred out during the duration of the course in which the study is being conducted. He therefore, seeks the issue of appropriate directions setting aside Ext.P6. Though the petitioner has submitted Ext.P7 representation, no orders have been passed thereon till date, it is complained. 2. Adv.Sri.K.S.Anil appears for the respondents. According to the learned counsel, Ext.P4 order issued by the 2nd respondent granting permission to the petitioner to join the B.Tech Engineering Course is subject to the specific conditions stipulated therein. It has been specifically stated that he would not be eligible for protection from transfer and that a request for transfer from him would also not be entertained. Having joined the course knowing fully well that he is not entitled to any protection, it is not open to the petitioner to now contend that he is entitled to the protection of Ext.P1.

(3.) HEARD . It is no doubt true that Ext.P1 contains certain stipulations that persons who are undergoing courses with the prior permission of the authorities are entitled to protection from transfer during the period of their Course. Ext.P4 has been issued on 19.11.2008. Ext.P1 guidelines are dated 24.04.2013, which is much subsequent to Ext.P4. By Ext.P4, the petitioner and other similar employees who are continuing study with the permission of the authorities have been granted protection from transfer. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 2nd respondent is a Subordinate Officer of the 1st respondent. Therefore, in case of conflict, it is only the guidelines that should prevail. It is to protect the interests of employees who are pursuing studies with the permission of the Department that the guidelines have been brought into force. It cannot be said that the guidelines are not applicable to the petitioner because of the condition that was imposed in Ext.P4. The petitioner has already submitted Ext.P7 representation to the 2nd respondent, on which no orders have been passed. It is for the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders thereon, to see that Ext.P1 is given effect to. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P7 representation and to pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner also. The operation and implementation of Ext.P6 order of transfer in so far as it transfers the petitioner, shall be kept in abeyance until final orders are passed in accordance with the above directions.