MOOSAKOYA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is working as a Deputy Director of Public relations Department, Kozhikod e. As per Ext. P3 order dated 29. 6. 1996 he was appointed as Secretary, Kerala Press Academy on deputation under the usual terms and conditions of deputation, but without deputation allowance. In the resultant vacancy of Deputy Director, the third respondent was promoted and posted in the vacancy at Kozhikod e. THE petitioner challenges Ext. P-2 order mainly on three grounds. (1) THE order of deputation is bad because his willingness was not sought before passing of ext. P-2 order; (2) THE deputation, being a transfer is opposed to clause 5 of ext. P-3 guidelines because the petitioner is due to retire within two years; and (3) THE order of deputation is intended to benefit the third respondent to get promotion by creating a vacancy of Deputy Director.

(2.) A statement has been filed on behalf of the first respondent in which it is stated that the post of Secretary, Kerala Press academy has been lying vacant for along period and that the petitioner, who is an experienced person was chosen to man the post and these is no intention to favour the third respondent or anybody. It is also stated that the third respondent, being the junior most cannot be deputed to the post of Secretary. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying the allegation that the order of deputation has been made in order to suit the convenience of the third respondent.

(3.) THE learned counsel argued that the deputation is also a recognised mode of transfer and the guidelines which governs transfer of government servants evidenced by Ext. P-3 must be followed by the Government. In order to support to the above point learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the rulings of this Court as well as the Supreme Court in the following cases: Damodaran v. State of Kerala (1982 KLT SN J 25), Director, telecommunications v. Sukumaran (1984 KLT476), Dr. Sethumadhavan v. State of kerala (ILR 1991 (1) Kerala 656), Director of School Education, Madras and Ors. v. O. Karuppa THEvanand Ors. (1994 (Supp.) (2) SCC 33) and E. P. Rpyappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1974 SC 555 ). According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ext. P-2 order of deputation which is is reality a transfer is arbitrary, discriminatory and opposed to the guidelines contained in Ext. P3, therefore, it was argued that Ext. P2 order is liable to be interfered at the hands of this Court. But it is difficult to accept the above contentions put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of two judgments of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Babu v. State of Kerala (1988 (2)KLT 25s) and State of Kerala v. Rajan (1989 (2) KLT666 ). In the above two decisions this Court held that transfers are effected in respect of transferable posts in the exigencies of service. A Government servant who occupies a transferable post has no right to insist that he should be continued in a particular place or that he should be transferred to a particular place of his choice. THEre is no condition of service implied or expressed in this behalf and that is a matter entirely of administrative discretion to be exercised in the larger interest of administration. Even though the State government enunciated guidelines in the matter of effecting transfers in deviation from those guidelines it does not amount to violation of any conditions of service.