SURESH BABU R. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is filed under Sec. 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.24532 of 2024. The writ petition was filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 transfer order dtd. 1/2/2024 issued by the 3 rd respondent transferring the appellant from Thiruvananthapuram to Ramakkalmedu in Idukki district and Ext.P9 order dtd. 2/7/2024 by which the 1st respondent rejected Ext.P7 representation dtd. 15/5/2024 submitted by the appellant against Ext.P1. The appellant also sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit him to continue as Senior Technical Assistant in the office of the 2nd respondent at Thiruvananthapuram. As per the impugned judgment dtd. 4/4/2025, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed this writ appeal.

(2.) The case of the appellant, in brief, is that he joined service as a Technician under the 2nd respondent on 12/7/1995. In the year 2021, he was promoted as Sub-Engineer (now redesignated as Senior Technical Assistant). As per Ext.P1 transfer order dtd. 1/2/2024, he was transferred from Thiruvananthapuram to Ramakkalmedu in Idukki district. According to the appellant, the 3rd respondent has no authority or power to shift a post from the Headquarters to another district. The post of Senior Technical Assistant was created based on Ext.P2 order dtd. 25/2/2021 issued by the 1st respondent on the basis of Ext.P3 report related to restructuring of the 2nd respondent issued in the year 2019. It is further contended by the appellant that he cannot be transferred out of Thiruvananthapuram without shifting the post of Senior Technical Assistant. He submitted Ext.P7 representation dtd. 15/5/2024 before respondents 1 and 3 and then approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.19544 of 2024 challenging Ext.P1. By Ext.P8 judgment dtd. 6/6/2024, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders in Ext.P7 within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and till such time the appellant was permitted to continue at Thiruvananthapuram. But by Ext.P9 order dtd. 2/7/2024, the 1st respondent rejected Ext.P7 representation. Ext.P9 order was issued relying on Ext.P10 letter dtd. 31/5/2024 issued by the 3rd respondent to the 1st respondent, and according to the appellant, in Ext.P10, the 3rd respondent requested the Government to shift the post occupied by the appellant to Idukki. Without passing an order to shift the post, it is not possible to transfer the appellant from Thiruvananthapuram to Idukki. Moreover, the appellant had undergone an open-heart surgery in March 2024, and this fact was also overlooked by the 3rd respondent while transferring him.

(3.) Respondents 2 and 3 filed a counter affidavit dtd. 18/7/2024 in the writ petition opposing the reliefs and producing Ext.R3(a) document.