BABU M. Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Denial of transfer to the petitioner, who is working as Junior Health Inspector Grade -I, in the opted district of Idukki, to the home district at Ernakulam, raising the contention that he has not completed the minimum tenure of three years envisaged for the purpose of transfer in the particular cadre, also pointing out that the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade -I is a state -wise post, is sought to be challenged in this original petition. The attempt made by the petitioner by approaching the Kerala Administrative Tribunal was not fruitful.

(2.) The facts and figures reveal that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Health Inspector Grade -II as per Annexure A -1 dated 25.10.2002 and he joined duty in Idukki District. On completion of 12 years, the petitioner was given promotion as Junior Health Inspector Grade -I on 22.7.2013 as per Annexure -A2. While so, the existing ratio of 2:1 was changed by the Government making it as 1:1 between the Junior Health Inspector Grade -II and Junior Health Inspector Grade -I. This was done as per Annexure A -3 order dated 9.1.2012. Pursuant to the changed circumstances, the eligibility of the petitioner was reconsidered and it was accordingly, that the petitioner was ordered to be promoted as Junior Health Inspector Grade -I with effect from 1.2.2011 as per Annexure -A4 order dated 5.3.2014. It is stated that the petitioner was discharging the very same duties and that in the two different posts, namely Junior Health Inspector Grade -II and Junior Health Inspector Grade -I.

(3.) By virtue of the fact that the petitioner was given retrospective promotion as Grade -I with effect from 1.2.2011, the petitioner has completed the minimum tenure of three years in connection with the general transfer for the year 2014 and hence he preferred a representation to have a posting to the home district at Ernakulam. Initially, the name of the petitioner was included in the draft list, but the same was subsequently removed and hence, he filed O.A. No. 1262 of 2014 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, as per Annexure A -6 order dated 19.8.2014, disposed of the said O.A., directing the concerned respondent to consider the eligibility of the petitioner for transfer to his home district. Pursuant to the said verdict, the matter was considered and Annexure -A7 order was passed by the second respondent on 16.12.2014 rejecting the claim, holding that the retrospective promotion ordered as per Annexure -A4 cannot be considered for the purpose of transfer as the same was likely to vary and the same would have been relevant only with regard to seniority and not with respect to transfer. This was sought to be challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 131 of 2015 wherein interference was declined. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows: