SUDARSANAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was initially appointed as Food Inspector in Health Service of the State of Kerala. While he was working in Thiruvananthapuram Circle, he was placed in full additional charge of the District Food Inspector, Kollam as per Ext. P1 proceedings of 2nd respondent. However, by Ext. P2, he was put in full additional charge of Chief Food Inspector, Mobile Vigilance Squard, Thiruvananthapuram while he was working at Kottarakkara. Later, by Ext. P3 proceeding, the Director of Health Services cancelled the above order and the 3rd respondent was placed in full additional charge of Chief Food Inspector, Mobile Vigilance Squad, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner had been directed to hand over charge to 3rd respondent. This writ petition has been filed praying to quash Ext. P3 order issued by the 2nd respondent.

(2.) The counsel appearing for the petitioner and the 3rd respondent were heard. Heard also the counsel for the additional respondents 4 and 5 who have got themselves impleaded as per the order in C.M.P. No. 26262 of 1996. I also heard the Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2.

(3.) The only question which required to be considered in this case is whether this Court can interfere in Ext. P3 order passed by the 2nd respondent. By Ext. P3 what has been done by the 2nd respondent is to place the 3rd respondent Food Inspector, Mobile Vigilance Squad, Thiruvananthapuram in full additional charge of the Chief Food Inspector, Mobile Vigilance Squad, Thiruvananthapuram after cancelling the charge earlier given to the petitioner who was working as Food Inspector, Kottarakkara Circle. It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that no reasons are given for cancelling the full additional charge given to the petitioner and substituting the 3rd respondent in his place. In support of said contention the counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner ( AIR 1978 SC 851 ) and a decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Balakrishnan 1992 (1) KLT 420 ). The counsel for the additional respondents 4 and 5 also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu ( AIR 1974 SC 555 ). Before invoking the principles or rules laid down in the aforesaid decisions it is necessary to examine the ambit and scope of the impugned order. What has been done by Ext. P3 is to put the 3rd respondent in full additional charge of Chief Food Inspector. The 3rd respondent is the senior most Food Inspector in the Mobile Vigilance Squad Unit, Thiruvananthapuram. By Ext. P3, no service benefit has been conferred on the 3rd respondent. What has been directed is only to hold additional charge of the Chief Food Inspector. This appears to be an interim arrangement for administrative reasons. On this score, there is no question of any dispute as to seniority among the petitioner and the contesting respondents. By the reason of the present order, the service conditions of the petitioner or the contesting respondents have not been in any way affected.